Are social media sites true addictions? These days the term "addiction" is tossed about so casually, it sometimes feels as though people don't believe they're complete unless they're addicted to something. When I was coming up through the medical ranks, addiction meant serious physical or chemical dependency - usually on some form of alcohol or drugs. But the term has since been broadened - and stretched thin, in my opinion - to include all manner of behaviors that don't really qualify as addictions. Case in point: the "addiction" to the wildly narcissistic social networking sites and media that are now sweeping the nation. I've recently seen experts weighing in on the "signs" of these addictions to sites like Facebook. I'm here to tell you that while it's clearly possible for compulsive behaviors to spring up with regard to these types of sites, calling it an "addiction" is taking things too far. What's the difference between a chemical addiction and an "addiction" to Facebook? It's this: People who have abused their bodies with drugs or alcohol often need serious medical attention to wean their systems off of these substances. People who have squandered their time reacquainting themselves with people they knew for 10 minutes when they were eight years old just need to get a life. I hate to be that glib about it, and I'm sure many of you will accuse me of being a crusty old timer who can't adapt to change … and maybe you're not off. But I find it personally offensive that people are forever seeking nonexistent medical excuses for their lack of judgment and bad behavior. How about some personal accountability? Saying that you're addicted to Facebook is like saying a man is "addicted" to TV watching during the NFL playoffs. Facebook is a choice… an enjoyable distraction. And like many enjoyable distractions, some people just take it too far. There's been no official talk of naming overuse of Facebook as an actual addiction … but don't be surprised if it happens some day soon. All hail the mighty statin drugs! The wonder drug of the 21st century and beyond! Not only do they obliterate cholesterol, but they're good for whatever ails you! I'm being facetious, of course. But lately, the non-stop reports of the many abilities of statin drugs have taken on the tenor of a pitch by a 19th century snake oil salesman. Every time you turn around, there's yet another claim about some new dizzying statin success with a previously unheard of use. This time around, a report is saying that statins could help protect men from prostate cancer and other urological issues. The clinical study by the Mayo Clinic studied more than 2,400 men between ages 40 and 79 over the course of 15 years. The men who did not take statins were three times more likely to develop prostate cancer; by comparison, only six percent of the statin takers suffered from the disease. The Mayo Clinic's Rodney Breau says that "until now, there has been limited evidence" to support the long-held theory that statins could prevent the onset of cancer. Could it be that the people who were more likely to have heart problems were also more likely to develop cancer? That the same dietary choices that led to heart disease, or diabetes, or anything else could make them more susceptible to developing cancer? Did anyone bother to ask that question? I'm guessing not. I'm not trying to be a glass-half-empty guy, but why am I the only one who bothers to point out that statins have downsides like the impairment of brain function? It's bad enough when you take them to "treat" high cholesterol. But for heaven's sake, don't start popping these pills thinking they're a cancer cure-all because of one lousy study. | 
