By J. Alexander Short

Learning about the modern opioid epidemic can be overwhelming, to say the least. When I first began reading and writing about this topic, I had no idea there were linguistic rules. For one, it is substance use, not substance abuse. Additionally, the phrase ‘person with an addiction’ is far preferable to ‘addict’. That makes sense. In fact, whether it should be called the opioid epidemic, the opioid crisis, or something else might change depending on who you talk to. 

The prevalence of stigma surrounding drug use is staggering. Individuals with substance use disorder do not want to reveal their problem for fear of social reaction. Families of those with substance use disorder similarly may fear the reaction of their community. Essentially, no one is willing to admit their role in one of the greatest health epidemics the United States has ever seen. And maybe that is why it continues to get worse and worse. 

So many leading healthcare organizations and policymakers have made a point to stress the critical importance of language when speaking about this healthcare crisis. On the top of a SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) pamphlet about the opioid epidemic, it reads in bold lettering: “If you want to care for something, you call it a ‘flower;’ if you want to kill something, you call it a ‘weed.’” This delicate treatment of language reflects the power that fault-based language possesses to stigmatize those suffering from addiction. 

This sort of caution is important. However, I fear that the extensive care being utilized to avoid offensive language and to ensure a scientifically and socially accurate terminology might be having a sort of reverse effect. 

The average American affected by substance use disorder certainly won’t know it by that name. In fact, they may tend to become confused and overwhelmed by the disparity of language they come across when searching the internet for information about “heroin addiction.”

As the opioid epidemic continues to grow and becomes impossible to continue ignoring, policymakers and the public alike must choose the lexicon with which to speak about the matter. Of course, avoiding fault-based words or calling someone an ‘addict’ reflects an essential level of care, caution should nonetheless be exercised before certain circles establish some sort of second, parallel language to describe the opioid epidemic. This is a shared crisis that affects every strata of society. If the language we use is exclusionary in any way, it will only serve to harm progress in this sphere. Ultimately, this language will prevent less informed individuals from entering into valuable and important conversations about this topic.

It is necessary that, as a society, we harness a common, careful language that is as accessible to the public as it is to academic circles. After all, when someone finds the strength to reach out for help, they ought not be met with yet just another obstacle to overcome.