Aims

To support the free and open dissemination of research findings and information on alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. To encourage open access to peer-reviewed articles free for all to view.

For full versions of posted research articles readers are encouraged to email requests for "electronic reprints" (text file, PDF files, FAX copies) to the corresponding or lead author, who is highlighted in the posting.

___________________________________________

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Alcohol/Drug/Substance “Abuse”: The History and (Hopeful) Demise of a Pernicious Label


The language used to label alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems exerts a significant influence on people experiencing such problems and on how professional helpers, policy makers, and the public view such people. Whether AOD-related problems are viewed primarily in terms of medicine (illnesses), psychology (habits), sociology (norms), morality (vices), religion (sins), or law (crimes) rests on a choice of concepts and words. America’s enduring and ambivalent relationship with psychoactive drugs is replete with cycles of stigmatization/de-stigmatization/re-stigmatization, criminalization/decriminalization/recriminalization, and medicalization/de-medicalization/re-medicalization. Put simply, we can’t seem to make up our collective minds about these substances and the people who use them to excess. As a result, we have not achieved any enduring consensus on the language that best depicts AOD-related problems (White, 2004).

This brief commentary is about two such word choices—abuse/abuser—whose origins and shortcomings we will explore. We join a growing list of addiction professionals who have advocated the immediate and permanent removal of abuse/abuser from the lexicon of the addictions field and discouragement of their use in broader cultural discussions of AOD problems. Five arguments support this recommendation. . . . . .

Read Full Commentary (PDF)
___________________________________________