Personally, I find our growing obsession with prescription medicine far more interesting than the "dramatic increase" of a particular kind of medication.
Though many physicians seem opposed to the overmedication of our society, it appears they are in the minority. I wonder if that trend will change. That would be an interesting (though perhaps vague) statistic to track.
My girlfriend is a primary care pediatric nurse practitioner (meaning she can prescribe narcotics, among other things), and always complains that many of the doctors and other NPs she works with prescribe antibiotics even when it is completely unnecessary. They do this because patients demand them, and if they don't, many patients change doctors. Antibiotics have no effects on viruses, but patients do not understand that, or refuse to accept it, even when the doctor tells them. Pharmaceuticals seem to have such a pronounced effect on so many conditions, that people believe they can cure everything.
On a side note, I can see why people could become addicted to pain killers. I was recently hit from behind at about 50MPH, and hurt my back pretty badly. The doctor prescribed narcotic painkillers and muscle relaxers. Because my work is highly intellectual, I took them only when the pain was more detrimental than the effect of the medication. In essence though, the pills are kind of nice.
They are like catching a mild (2-4 beers) buzz that lasts all day, without any nasty side effects like difficulty sleeping or hangovers. They kind of make you a little more relaxed and a little bit happy, with a slight haze on the brain. And they are legal and dirt cheap, even without a prescription plan. If you don't have to think for a living, I can see why you would abuse them. But they seem mostly harmless overall, would it really be so bad to give people that want them some happy pills? It's probably trading one substance abuse problem for another, but that would be ignoring the degree. On the other hand, the only reason I don't smoke weed is because I think it makes people lethargic and complacent, so maybe I'm not the person to ask.
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should never be prescribed to someone with a viral infection. In a small minority of patients, antibiotics can be useful for prophylaxis.
The precise set of patients and conditions where this applies is a matter of open debate, but (to take an extreme example) I certainly wouldn't say that a physician would be wrong to prescribe antibiotics to an immunocompromised infant who was hospitalized with influenza.
In addition, the placebo effect is real. The more strongly the patient believes, the stronger the effect. This is only a problem when trying to determine the truth of a drug's physical action - if one's concern is helping people, the effect is beneficial.
Of course, over-prescription of antibiotics accelerates emergence of resistant bacterial strains. So, faux-antibiotics would be in order - provided no patients found out, PR outrage, malpractice suits, license revocation, bankruptcy, etc.
Note, though, they can kill you. Something like three million C. difficile infections occur every year in the US (http://www.medicinenet.com/clostridium_difficile_colitis/art...). They are caused by the bacteria growing after you kill all the "good" bacteria with antibiotics. In a severe case, this can cause severe diarrhea, which can be fatal. It's not a good way to go.
The most common medications deal with issues directly related to lack of exercise, sleep, stress, and poor diet. So, I don't know if physicians are more prone to medicate people or if people are simply living less healthy lifestyles.
PS: And before you ask yes, Anti depressants are actually less effective than regular exercise especially when paired with a healthy diet and sufficient sleep.
Talking to someone the other day about copyright and patents, she asked the standard question that if big companies couldn't protect their markets, how could they pay for research into new drugs.
I countered that most increases of quality of life and longevity come from what you said -- basic knowledge of the value of exercise, nutrition, and sleep -- though I haven't researched it deeply.
The money going for all this drug research and prescriptions comes from somewhere. Whether directly related or not, schools could use more money for recess, gym, teaching nutrition, and healthy lunches.
I expect the return (in quality of life and longevity) on investing in improving school programs to teach such things would surpass what you get from investments (such as by creating limited monopolies) in drug research, and you wouldn't get the side effects (no pun intended) from the monopolies like this article suggested of marketing to people to buy drugs to fix what exercise, sleep, and diet would for free.
I'm not saying never give patents for drugs, but evidence like the article's, combined with knowing the value of diet, exercise, and sleep that we aren't teaching and practicing, suggests the net value of public support for drug research is not as high as you'd expect and could even be negative.
Anecdotally, I feel my regular exercise, regular sleep, and healthy diet create a stable foundation for me to enjoy my life much more than when I didn't have them.
Though many physicians seem opposed to the overmedication of our society, it appears they are in the minority. I wonder if that trend will change. That would be an interesting (though perhaps vague) statistic to track.