For centuries, "addiction" referred to the state of being "given over" or intensely involved with any activity. The ambiguity lay in the value attached to this state; addiction could be either tragic or enviable, or somewhere in between. The more restrictive meaning associated with drugs emerged in the 19th century and now coexists with the traditional definition of "addiction." In the first section of this article, historical studies are used to show that the restrictive meaning did not stem from scientific or medical discoveries, but from the rhetoric of the temperance and anti-opium movements of the 19th century. In the second section, contemporary research is used to show that the traditional concept describes the clinical realities of addiction far better than the restrictive concept. In the third section, new interview data on university students are used to show how the traditional concept also describes the dependent and addictive patterns of nondiagnosed people better than does the restrictive concept. The article's conclusion argues that the restrictive meaning should be discarded because it artificially limits addiction to a special case. Although fixation on this special case reflects social concern, the restrictive definition has proven to be inconsistent in identifying the types of addiction that are harmful. Glasser's distinction between "positive" and "negative" addiction, with some refinement, adds a socially critical distinction to the traditional definition of addiction. Finally, the potential for increased understanding that derives from critically examining the meanings of "addiction" is explored. 4 tables and 59 references