A recent piece of literature states:
"Less than 3 percent of painkiller addicts initially become addicted from their medical prescription for legitimate pain."
"80 percent of OxyContin addicts have previously taken cocaine."
This here further serves to further discredit the "accidental addict" myth - the tale of jack or jane who has never so much as taken alcohol, who develops a painful condition and "gets addicted" (as if it's something that one just catches from a drug) due to pressure from a pill pushing doctor (which doesn't even make sense seeing as with the exception of Florida, most physicians are increasingly apprehensive to prescribe even codeine, and even in the case of Florida, not even the most unscrupulous doctor is "pushing" anything on the patient, who generally seeks out the drug deliberately).
I'll say it again - In patients without a history of recreational drug use or addiction, the vast majority of those who begin opioid therapy secondary to an injury do not become "drug addicts" through narcotherapy, whether acute or long term.
Most addicted prescription opioid users have had histories of illicit or casual drug use prior to beginning opioids - Which we can speculate is in large part because it is primarily these same casual drug users who seek a supply through pseudo-legitimate means (i.e. legal means).
Might I add that recently, propagandist & anti-drug crusader Larry Golbom cited this aforementioned statistic on his radio show in a way which implied that the 3% figure is actually alarming - which if you ask me is simply an instance of flash and trash propaganda - which is basically, the use of figures or statistics presented to an audience of lay-people, conveyed in a manner which allows the propagandist to conceptualize the figure in whichever manner supports his rhetoric (even to mean the opposite of what it actually means); To put it simple; an instance of flash & trash might be a speaker (Larry G) who presents what is actually a very low figure (3%), but articulates it in a way in which to convince the audience that it's a shockingly high figure (i.e. epidemic proportions); thus worthy of a great deal of concern, and therefore adding an illusion of credibility or supporting evidence for his cause.