Opinions - Use of language in the war on drugs

[machine_elf]

I was browsing the net and found with an incredibly interesting philosophy on a major flaw in the current pro-legalisation lobby's efforts:

"The first thing we need to do is start using a little different language
when it comes to our fight with the current governmental status of "drugs."
The use of the word "drugs" is a pretty loaded thing to do. Let's face it,
the public has been effectively (although patchy and somewhat faltering)
brainwashed that drugs are "evil, wicked, mean and nasty." We need to use
different terms. Like when I am discussing the entheogens that we use for spiritual reasons I call them "sacraments." In a population that has 90% belief in a Deity and 80% who consider themselves religious and 70% that pray at least
occasionally, who would be opposed to someone taking the sacraments? Tell
the Catholics they can't have their wine and wafers and see what war that
would begin.

This is a little harder to do with things like cocaine, speeds, heroine, and
the other various chemicals that definitely do have not only stigmas
surrounding them but definite medical and social problems surrounding them
too. While it would not really hurt my feelings if these were not
re-legalized the simple fact is prohibition does not work and the fact they
have been criminalized is currently leading to horrific crime and the
underground that goes along with the black-market.

Why not refer to these as OTC medications? All of them do have a legitimate
usage -- speeds do help those with allergies and asthma and people driving
to vacation spots, heroine helps those in chronic pain where morphine
tolerance it too high as with cancer patients (the gov is actually using it
some now) and the other chemicals do have medical uses-- but the key with
these is the same key to OTC medications: they are for use not abuse. As a
general rule OTC medications are not abused. The same would be true if all
the non-entheogenic chemicals were re-legalized -- at least abuse would drop
but there are always people who will abuse things. I hear of people taking
way to many vitamins and laxatives which is abuse and causes just as much
damage as the criminalized non-entheogenic chemicals (OTC medications).

The second thing is that "drugs" have been legal for billions of years. It
has only been the last 90 that cocaine, heroine (& opium) and 35 that the
others have been made illegal to secure political power against the
movements in the 60's. This needs to be brought out very clearly. We need
everything re-legalized, not decriminalized or legalized -- we want them re-legalized. It might not seem like a big difference when reading this but
psychologically it makes a huge impact in the thinking models people use.
It also demonstrates that they were legal until the recent past and reminds
people that all their illegality has done is take away our freedom and
create the current situation.

Sorry for this little rant, but I truly believe that much of what is causing
our "side" problems with our movement is the language we are using. If
"they" define the language they will always win. Language is the heart of
communication and thought. If we re-define everything with language that
suits "our" side of this war then we will have won one of the hardest
battles. From that point on, we will begin dominating the thought/thinking
and communication that surrounds the subject.

We will also be free of the limitations that the brainwashing of the past 35
(to 90) years has instilled -- people are against drugs, not sacraments or
OTC medications. People are against crime and the black-market, which
surrounds drugs, not medications and sacraments which needs to be
something that is brought up constantly --without drugs there is no black-
market and crime."

Language is a tool, it could be used to incredible effect in order to show the public the truth.

'peace'

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Excellent find.
	hooray!!
	Great article. The manipulation of language for ones own ends is evident all around us every day.
	Very nice rant

[grandbaby]

Great article and great idea for a separate thread, ME. This has been brought up in various threads, usually in passing. IMHO, the end of prohibition can't be brought about while both sides talk about "drugs." If we talk about "drugs" we're using the enemy's language. And most "drugs" have little in common with each other — the only commonality between the illegal/greymarket ones (what most people think of as "drugs") is that Pfizer hasn't yet figured out how to make a billion dollars having them prescribed to every hypochondriac on Earth.

[brighteyes88]

im kinda torn up on this issue.

on one hand, i think that using euphamisms is a bit on the propaganda side, and might backfire with people saying the pro-(whatever you want to call drugs) are trying to trick people into their reasoning (even though this is what the people against drugs are doing).

on the other hand, the "nicer" terms are truthful, no matter what you say. the truth isnt black and white, its shades of grey, and there are infinite viewpoints from which to describe anything.

the whole war on drugs outcome is inevitable, in my opinion, with drugs being "re-legalized". we just need to wait for the right generation.
its too late to convert the current one: they've already made their minds up!
and yes, ppl are going to reply with all their conversion stories, involving the most conservative examples, but,
on a large scale, this is not happening.

just dont give up, cos if we do, we lose all the steam. i think all the new strategies for gaining an upper hand are ultimately futile. all we need to do is keep saying whats true, and gradually more and more people will listen.

at this moment in time, i dont think twisting words is going to make much of an effect. but it cant really hurt i guess...

[machine_elf]

the whole war on drugs outcome is inevitable, in my opinion, with drugs being "re-legalized". we just need to wait for the right generation.

Why should we have to wait for subsequent generations? What makes this generation any more willing to plough billions of pounds/dollars into an ineffective and predjudiced war on drugs? I don't blame the general public, they have been lied to, robbed and made fools out of. The aim of this revised use of language is to allow them to see the truth without their socially conditioned mindset of "drugs are evil" getting in the way, and this should apply to any generation.

Of course the outcome is inevitable, we are the side of truth, but by letting the prohibitionists define the language we are making that inevitability slip further away.

[dirk]

You can approach it from the other direction of course.

The word drugs isn't going to go away, but the discrimination between traditionaly accepted (legal) drugs and those drugs which are not traditionaly accepted by society (illegal).

Here in the UK, if you keep an eye on the media and government policy, you can sense a growing recognition of alcohol, nicotine and such as drugs. Helping this idea spread can only help in highlighting the fact that the present system is based upon discrimination, just like the issues of race, gender and sexuality in the past.

So the next time some one uses the phrase "drugs and alcohol" you might take the opportunity to reply "why don't you just say drugs?

Reputation Comments on this post:

good observation.

[ojos_de_brujo]

It is true that people are (slowly) realizing that legal drugs can do as much harm as illegal drugs. This is a good thing. 'Governments want us to believe they are protecting us (and our children) by banning certain drugs. But if legal drugs can do as much harm, this can not be their true intention.'
Swim believes (at least in her country) more and more people start to think about this.

In English the word 'drug' can signify both illegal drugs and 'medicine'. There is a tendency to refer to only illegal substances as 'drugs', this is definitely due to drug policy. They want to make a clear distinction between legal and illegal substances and have hijacked the word 'drugs'.
It's a good idea to take it back, we don't need to use eufemisms, because we are right. The use of eufemisms will give the anti-drug activists a justification for what they are saying, because it gives the impression we have something to hide. They will quickly throw that back at us.
Refering to cocaine and heroin as OTC's is not a good idea, because it is not what they are.
Swim agrees most illegal drugs have medicinal purposes and should be available for those needing them. People in pain should not suffer because the government doesn't want to allow citizens to use drugs recreationally.
Before we can get the freedom back to take the substances we choose, we have to get this point through. The government is deliberately allowing/making seriously ill people suffer because of the war on drugs.
If put like this, more people will start questioning the actual purpose of the war on drugs.

Also Dirk, you can not say the present drug legislation is discrimination and compare it to race and gender discrimination (sexuality, that's a matter of opinion). Although it sounds good and Swim is tempted to agree, anti drug activists will discredite you immediately. Taking recreational drugs is a choice, but you can not choose your race or gender. (actually nowadays you can: transsexuals, Michael Jackson)
Comparing the struggle against the war on drugs to equal rights movements and such will offend many people and will do us more harm than good.
Anti drug activists have huge amounts of many to spin their communication and make it effective, all we have is common sense and the truth.

[brighteyes88]

Originally Posted by machine_elf

Why should we have to wait for subsequent generations? What makes this generation any more willing to plough billions of pounds/dollars into an ineffective and predjudiced war on drugs? I don't blame the general public, they have been lied to, robbed and made fools out of. The aim of this revised use of language is to allow them to see the truth without their socially conditioned mindset of "drugs are evil" getting in the way, and this should apply to any generation.

i dont believe there is a difference in the actual generations, its just that i think the more generaions that pass, the higher number of later generations willing to listen to the truth.
the current generation (everyone alive and thinking today), has been lied to robbed and made fools out of (mostly), and that it is not their fault - but, as time passes, people are more willing to listen.

yes, there are people capable of making the connection to the truth, but i believe that, sadly, these people are the (extreme)minority. education is the only way, and maybe changing the word "drugs" to whatever acronym you choose will make people forget what the hell were even talking about? most people do not know these terms (myself included - wait. do most people know these terms? i must be the only one), and hearing the remarkable non-dangers of 'insert jargon term for drug'
is not going to impress people who are not in the know.

Originally Posted by machine_elf

Of course the outcome is inevitable, we are the side of truth, but by letting the prohibitionists define the language we are making that inevitability slip further away.

yeah, i dont like the fact that they choose the terms, but if we change them, i think the truth about any drug will be hidden by the pro-drug new term, because people will take a while to learn that 'new term' means 'drugs'.

iono, i say we just keep on keepin on.
we'll get there if we're supposed to

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by brighteyes88

if we change them, i think the truth about any drug will be hidden by the pro-drug new term, because people will take a while to learn that 'new term' means 'drugs'.

But what use is the word "drugs", really? I for one don't like it at all, because it's so broad as to be meaningless; basically, it's "anything ingested that changes the body or mind, that isn't nutritionally required." It ranges from sugar to heroin!

I don't think "drugs" are "good" or "bad", and aside from the catch-all phrase "illegal drugs" when discussing that-which-is-prohibited, there's very little need to discuss them all at once. The term "drug user" currently connotes everyone from crackheads to chronics, not to mention those who like a little toot or a trip a couple times a year, but not those who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or pop Prozac — what use is it, then?

I like Erowid's take on "the relationship between humans and psychoactives" — it's a much more inclusive term (and even encompasses mind-or-mood-altering physical activity such as yoga and meditation).

[dirk]

Originally Posted by ojos_de_brujo

Also Dirk, you can not say the present drug legislation is discrimination and compare it to race and gender discrimination (sexuality, that's a matter of opinion). Although it sounds good and Swim is tempted to agree, anti drug activists will discredite you immediately. Taking recreational drugs is a choice, but you can not choose your race or gender. (actually nowadays you can: transsexuals, Michael Jackson)

Hi Ojos - sorry, I don't think I made the point clearly enough.
When I mention discrimination, I am not reffering to the drug user being discriminated against (though this obviously happens, and your right, that is based upon a choice), rather that the substance itself is thought of and treated differently to other (legal) drugs.

The discrimination stems from the fact that tradition allows society to accept alcohol, nicotine etc whereas the other substances have been treated as "a threat from the outside of what is normal"

i.e. western society in the past deemed people of color to be essentialy different to civilised whites and did not consider them as an equal human being - this allows them to be treated differently (discrimination).

like wise, there are plenty of people who recognise marijuana as a drug, and alcohol as a drink. They refuse to fully accept that they are both drugs and to some extent are the same sort of thing (discrimination).

or to answer you point in another way.

"but you can not choose your race or gender"

just like a joint can't choose to be an ice cold beer

[machine_elf]

But what use is the word "drugs", really? I for one don't like it at all, because it's so broad as to be meaningless

I agree completely, the term is far too broad. Its like saying food or metal, there are many different subsets within that term. The prohibitionists capitalise on this and in doing so brainwash people against EVERY drug as if it were heroin.

The use of language is imperative to win the public due to their socially conditioned mindsets (as covered in the document above).

Also:

Refering to cocaine and heroin as OTC's is not a good idea, because it is not what they are.

This is incorrect, cocaine had been an otc medication for many years and was thought of as an "elixir of life". The only reason it isn't one nowadays is that it has been replaced by the longer-lasting and more orally active amphetamines.

Heroin (diacetylmorphine) was initially marketed by bayer as a non-addictive substitute to morphine for children (an embarassing mistake considering it is converted into morphine in the brain). It is frequently used nowadays in the treatment of terminal cancer patients with high opioid tolerance.

[stoneinfocus]

No, it´s not a choice,.... just like sexuality, why don´t all fags become chaste? -they won´t die of having no sex, except some suicides for various reasons...

And sum it up, boil it down to the essential, when did homo sapiens sapiens not use or needed drugs for each member of the society at any point of his history and when ever has this been controlled by other means then rites and culture?-be honest and see what´s under the line and guess what your true nature might be? ;-)

Besides heroin is metabolized in the liver to first 3- and 6-monoacetyl morphine and then morphine, of which the 6-mono derivative is active,
the word "drug" is reffered to medicine as well as any other agent, that per definition induces a metabolic change and is an extract of a plant or of a body, or a mineral that has an effect on a living being or a chemical molecule, like a peptide (casomorphines are like enkephaline, but are created by hazard on enzymatic action on the substrate casein in the testines), an acid blablabla... (please be correct half-assing is the death of everything)

we just need to teach that´s there´s no good or bad, per se, that there´s only differences in every aspect of living, like different faces, different preferences and needs and the differnt means or fullfilling those, that are all benign, if one was and mostly is able to find a benign way of living it out.

So, yes, sugar is a drug, as it´s a pure extract of a plant.

Ok, one more point that´s essential: living is not the numbers on your bank account, or how many fleshy children you bear, not necesseraliy that some think you died too earliy because of a liver failure, or how old you are when you finally die, it´s that you need to live your nature in harmony with yourself and surrounding.

So a fag might at some point see, that being chaste fills him up with hate, when he realized how much good sex he could have had, if he hadn´t been chaste, now realizing, that it was this littel thing what was missing and made him sick and making him still sick to see what he was forced to miss?

Coming back to opiates and heroine which should be OTC, itßs an absolute nderprescription, all those idiots talk about today we do more prescribe opates, thatßs what you see on TV and all see "great", but in fact itßs bull-shit.. nothing at all happened, but hypocrasie.

They´re all referring to an treatement act, that was worked out in 1925 under the influence of a fascist sense of "Volksgesundheit" and are still far away and reluctant to conduct a thresholdtreatment until the situation is treatable or resolves, thereby minimizing the damage with pure medicine.

Maybe those don´t want to be seen, as what they already are, big time -drug dealers for the players, that treat the deseases that they made up within their "health"-system.

but it looks so good to get him incacerated and write after a few weeks "treated for addiciton with succesful withdrawl", earnign 20 grands out of the social jack-pot and them leaving those again to their unforunate destiny.

[machine_elf]

Point taken, I didn't go into detail (as I didn't see it necessary).

all those idiots talk about today we do more prescribe opates, thatßs what you see on TV and all see "great", but in fact itßs bull-shit.. nothing at all happened, but hypocrasie.

What do you mean by this? it makes little sense. But if you are saying we don't prescribe opiates, then you're wrong (as a hospital pharmacist I should know).

But maybe thats not what you said. If you want to be understood use punctuation.... (amusing in a post about the power of language)

[ojos_de_brujo]

Well, Swim disagrees. As far as Swim knows, cocaine and heroin aren't over the counter drugs in SWIY's country. They once were, but nowadays they are not. That heroin is still used now, doesn't make it an OTC. OTC drugs can be obtained WITHOUT prescription.
Maybe we can call them UTC, under the counter drugs, when not obtained legally (on prescription).

On the word 'drugs': Swim can think of many non-nutritional substances that can be taken into your body, that Swim won't consider drugs. On the other hand, nutritional substances can be drugs (sugar).
Swim does not get why Swiy thinks the term drug is too broad. It's supposed to be a general term. Swim wouldn't want to give up the word food SWIY compares it with either. It would be a hassle not to have such general terms. Catch all terms make dialogue easier.
What the prohibitionists are doing with the word drug is just taking one of the constituants, Swim'll use heroin as example, and making the general term mean heroin. (i.e. the effect the word heroin has on the general public)This is some sort of totum pro parte.

The idea of changing the language of the war on drugs is fantastic, Machine_elf. But the more we disagree and perfect each others opinions and ideas the better they will get and the easier they will be received by the general public. We do not need to wait for a next generation, because they will only learn what they are thaught. Swim's sure there are some people on the forum who can contribute to these changes in language and perception, especially teachers and people who work in the media. This does not mean coming out of the drug users closet, but making subtle changes in the way you speak about drugs. IMHO subtility will generate the greatest effect.

[stoneinfocus]

I wrote "should", like, "they should be OTC, like they were at some point of time, but are not at the moment, what´s so hard to get there? ... all those, who say "today we prescribe more opiates", are hypocrits, in fact, you don´t even get enough, when you´re dying with cancer, you won´t get anything, if you´re "too young" or the mood of the doc isn´t that good that day and he feels like calling you/someone "go fuck off, junkie, all those junkies, like you, tell me they´re in pain, faggot, go to the nutshouse, get your cure".

The rest of the post should be clear, and I´d like to add that, alone in germany, estimated 3000 suicides are commited, due to the mean of 8 years of suffering, until an appropiate pain-management takes place, another 1000 junkies die because of prohibition, 1000 new HIV cases/year, because of prohibition, millions of crimes and costs, due to the fact that opiates and cocaine are not OTC anymore, users loosing their jobs and are being put through the system of justice and, obviously, the medics are not capable, nor willing to meet this demand in opiates, moreso, they discredit the patients and heroin addicts, letting them die, in a sense of "this is the best for those rotten apples in our society, anyway".... and this mostly because they´re thaught to treat after a a plan of 1925, and add completely useless therapies, and so on....

[ojos_de_brujo]

Sorry, Swim was reacting to an earlier post, it should have followed after the 10th post. Swiy reacted while SWim was writing her post, so she missed it.
Man, Swiy's easily agitated.

[machine_elf]

Sincere apologies for misapplication of terminology, I used OTC instead of specifying prescription only. Diacetylmorphine is still used under prescription in the UK especially in palliative care. Cocaine (erythroxyline) was replaced by the amphetamines during ww2 and therefore has no accepted medical use today... but it DID. Maybe then the term OTC medication should be changed to UTC medication or prescription medicines?

The more we disagree and perfect each others opinions and ideas the better they will get and the easier they will be received by the general public.

Agreed