Watching Our Mouths: Controlling Language as a Strategy for Drug User Activists Trying to Stop the War on those Involved in the Illegal Drug Trade

This piece was originally posted as a shorter email on the General Members’ List of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs’ (INPUD) web site.  I have changed it up a bit, but it remains essentially a personal call to arms to my colleagues/co-conspirators in the movement(s).  I am challenging our use of the terms of our oppressors in our professional, activist and personal lives; I am encouraging us to create our own terms that redirect the focus of attention to user-defined language that recognizes and honors our shared and diverse experiences of resistance and oppression fighting the international war on those involved in the illegal drug trade, including growers, producers, mules, dealers and, in this case especially, illicit drug users.   I’m also keeping in mind the fact that many of us occupy more than one position of involvement within the illegal drug trade, sometimes moving from one area to another; or being involved in more than one area at once.  Clearly the more involvement one has, the more vulnerable one is to the many human rights violations that exist.  This op ed piece focuses on illegal drug users and our experiences fighting the war being waged against us, specifically as it relates to the rejection of anti-drug user language which, I argue, should be replaced with politically inspired terminology of our own.

When I originally wrote this piece, I was directing my attention towards those on drug substitution programs (i.e.: methadone maintenance).  At a gathering during the 2008 International Drug Users’ Day in Copenhagen, Denmark, (hosted by BrugerForeningen - the Danish Drug Users’ Union), we heard a presentation from a member of the North American Methadone Association (NAMA).  Essentially, this speaker was talking about methadone clients as “patients” accessing “treatment” for the “disease” of “addiction”.  The majority of listeners did not support this interpretation (including me) and I wrote this email to address some of the key concerns that I and many other illicit drug user activists have with adopting medicalized/pathologized and criminalized terms that oppress us.  The fact that some drug users (DUs) define their legal substitution drug programs as "treatment" and seem happy to accept a definition of being "diseased patients" with a disease called "addiction" and therefore in need of "treatment/therapy" is extremely problematic on a number of fronts.

In building an international movement of illicit drug user activists we need to be united in our definition of terms and our philosophical arguments in favor of our collective demands for the right to do our drugs of choice safely and free of bias and judgment from others, including those on substitution "therapies" and certainly those promoting the status quo.  I’ve been an illegal drug user since the age of 12 and a habitual injection drug user since I was 24.  I’m 40 this year.  Moreover, I was on methadone maintenance for 5 years so I have first hand knowledge of what it's like to be party to a medicalized system of dealing with our needs as drug users. 

For the most part, we go on substitution therapies, not so we can become "cured" of our "disease" called "addiction", but because we are so wired that we no longer get high and must put all our money and creative energy into scoring, finding a way to get our drugs into us/finding a vein, finding money and making it through the day without getting ripped off/assaulted, going through withdrawal or being arrested.  Back in 1997 I was just starting a degree when I went on methadone - I had to go on it because I could not teach 2 courses at the university, attend my own class’s full time and work part time running a needle exchange and HIV anonymous testing clinic.  I knew I was in too deep and needed access to legal opiates that would allow me to function at top speed and get all the work done that I needed to.  Methadone maintenance afforded me the ability to do this and luckily it was available to me when I needed it (in Canada, methadone is covered for drug users on government assistance programs and in some private insurance packages, but some users have to pay for their doses themselves – accessibility remains a huge problem throughout Canada). 

When I was on methadone maintenance I NEVER saw myself as having some kind of disease; I never saw myself as a “drug "abuser" or "drug addict".  I don't care what the terms of the oppressors are; I never fit into or believed in any of the anti-DU terms they were applying to me.  In fact, I consistently went out of my way to educate the medical staff around me in an effort to change their language so it was no longer judgmental, antagonistic and degrading to me.

As far as I am concerned, and based on over 20 years of personal, professional and activist experiences, there is no such thing as a disease called “addiction”.  It cannot be located within the body, it is not organic in nature, and cannot be “cured” through the intervention of therapy.  I want to be clear in stating that there is a massive difference between going through a physical withdrawal, as in the case of habitual opiate users and alcohol consumers who abstain, and having a “disease” that is being treated.  There are most certainly a range of physical and psycho-emotive symptoms experienced by the withdrawing person, but these are caused entirely by the absence of a drug, rather than as a response to some pre-existing organic disorder.  The resumption of use of that drug would immediately “cure” all symptoms and restore the user to a more regular range of behaviours and feelings of increased well-being.

Traditional addiction and treatment specialists and many of those aligned with the criminal (in)justice system continue to define drug users as “patients” contending with a disease called “addiction”; or we are criminals by definition.  Proof of the disease of “addiction” is contingent on the “patient” having a range of “symptoms”, with “dependency” topping the list.  “Dependency” is defined as a medical “symptom” that helps to reveal whether someone has an “addiction”.  The circularity of the argument should be obvious to all.  Intervention strategies for these workers involves some kind of “treatment” that demands full abstention from the drug of choice (and usually a list of other drugs as well), and may be accompanied by a range of other demands, from forced group or individual therapy to enforced medical drug replacement therapies, to incarceration, to forced drug testing, as cases in point.  Different countries around the world have governments creating interdiction strategies based on the information gained from addictions/treatment and criminal system workers.  Much of this information is hopelessly biased against illegal drug users and our communities.  The result is often born out in the form of horrific human rights violations against illegal drug users (and those who use legal drugs illegally – like those who buy other’s prescriptions and under-age drug consumers).

I believe that we MUST challenge 12-steppers and medical/criminal justice system staff when they use terms like "addict", "drug abuser", and "clean", for example.  The effort must come from us, it must be consistent and we must be united in our call for a shift in language that does NOT promote a pathologized/criminalized conceptualization of illicit drug use/users.  In this particular case I am calling specifically on folks from drug substitution programs who support the status quo to challenge each other and change their conception of themselves and their understanding of how their current philosophical/political approach is antithetical to our goals of promoting the rights and dignity of illicit drug users - including drug users who obtain their drugs legally from the medical field. 

In Canada, being on a drug substitution program is currently the only legal way that wired opiate users can gain some control back in our lives because the alternative is so very dangerous, forcing us into criminal activities as the only way of obtaining enough of the money we need for our drugs to keep us from going through withdrawal: Lack of access to such programs can be extremely dangerous, requiring a huge investment of our money, a huge commitment of our time and a near guaranteed trip down misery lane should we fail to gain access to methadone or other replacement drugs for the range of ridiculous reasons that doctors give us.  And, if you should and can abstain, you can look forward to being called “clean” by those who are trying to encourage you to keep abstaining; the inference is that we are dirty when we are using.  The often unfortunate outcome of this approach is that if the person should resume use, s/he is unlikely to reveal the “re-lapse” to those who use such terms - nobody wants to be a failure after all (I reject the term “re-lapse” as well: Instead, I believe that “drug holidays” are an important harm reduction strategy and intermittent use is an effective way of avoiding physical dependency on certain drugs).

We need clear policy and procedural strategies that declare our collective

REJECTION of the terms of our oppressors.  Our work on every level should incorporate, of necessity, a commitment to re-shaping the dialogues circulating about us; moving them from the degrading to the celebrating.

What follows are examples of declarations that incorporate user-friendly language and a range of definitions and strategies to replace the status quo. Other folks will prioritize different issues for themselves, but this should not stop us from working together, taking what we can from one another and sharing our strategies to strengthen our resistance to the war on drug users.  Declarations, or statements of intent, can help us to focus our arguments, spelling out terminology and organizing issues.  At the very least, declarations can serve as a spring-board for discussions; we need expanded dialogue to move forward.  At the most, they can shape policy, constitutions, organizational philosophies and personal political approaches in emancipatory directions.

Declaration:

I reject a pathologized/diseased interpretation of any kind of drug use - including the use of prescribed substitution drugs: I reject the terms "addict", "addiction", "substance abuser", and, for example, "being clean” in the event that I stop using (a) drugs; and I further reject all criminalized terms/definitions that would automatically categorize my drug use as "illegal" and my person as a "criminal".  Instead I define all drug use as a socially neutral activity that can have both negative and positive consequences; the overwhelming number and kind of drug-related harms are a direct result of the criminalization of historically specific drugs and the targeting of people who are involved with the manufacture, trade and consumption of those drugs.  In this context, harm reduction strategies are the only real solution to drug-related risks and these programs should receive the majority of funding and support.

Declaration:

The taking of mind/body altering substances is part of the human condition and I seek to expose the racist, sexist, ageist, imperialist and classist campaigns of societal ruling classes who hypocritically celebrate their drugs of choice with criminal impunity while promoting a class of social underlings whose drugs of choice make us easy targets of the criminalized/pathologized war on illicit drug users.  I reject prohibition and abstentionist approaches to drug use; reject the pathologization and criminalization of illegal drug users; and I demand the same access to human rights and public health that legal drug users currently take for granted.  My motto for drug users is "just say know" (know about all the issues related to the use of your drugs), practice harm reduction and pleasure enhancement and be proud of who you are, including your status as an illegal drug user.  After all, wine tasting experts don’t make apologies for their actions and beliefs.  I am firmly committed to ending the war on illegal drug users and seek to empower all of us, and especially the most marginalized among us, to take control over our lives and enjoy self-respect, good health and personal dignity. 

Declaration:

I demand an immediate stop to the war on illegal drugs and the people who are involved with the manufacture, creation, distribution and use of those drugs.  Full legalization is the only humanitarian and pragmatic solution to this war and drug user activists should be empowered to lead the movement(S) directed at the secession of international campaigns that threaten our human rights and public health.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of illicit drug users have no problems associated with their drug use.  For the most part, people use illegal drugs in a completely recreational way and do not find themselves spiraling out of control or facing a chaotic situation.  I think I’ve already made it clear that it is the environment of use rather than use itself that results in the greatest number and kind of drug related harms.  Some of us end up using our drugs as coping mechanisms for negative environments of use; perhaps lacking family/friends/supports, a job, housing, a safe place to use, money, or reliable contacts; or we could be facing/living incarcerated lives; others among us use illicit drugs to self-medicate for physical maladies that are going untreated or for psychological/mental illnesses that have been undiagnosed.  I have argued that prohibition causes the greatest environments of risk for illicit drug users.  Legalization is the only way of eliminating the current range of harms faced by illicit drug users as an undifferentiated group.  In this context, there will still be those who require assistance with their relationship to drugs, but in all activities there are always people who will go to extremes – pushing boundaries and challenging popular conceptions of what is socially acceptable. 

Drugs are a quick way of changing our mental/physical being; they are a short-cut to an alternate reality; our propensity for boredom alone dictates that drug use will always remain an important vehicle for quick transformation; finally, there are a huge range of substances that can aid us in our transformations and this means that wide-spread drug use associated with availability will continue to be a part of the human condition.  The question, as I see it, is not why do some people use drugs, but why doesn’t everyone? – (especially in the context of international pharmaceutical conglomerates who are pushing their products on all of us for all situations).  The quick answer is that others have figured out alternative short-cuts to transformation by utilizing, for example, adrenaline enhancing activities (bungee jumping and other exercises), meditation, diet, sex, shopping, gambling and countless other strategies.   And, like drugs, while most of these approaches are easily accessible, excess in any one can result in negative repercussions – hell, drinking water can kill you if you drink enough.  In light of this approach to understanding the roles that drugs fill in our lives, it should be clear how unlikely it is that human beings will give up this convenient and frequently enjoyable strategy for transformation and change.  Given this reality, the only humanitarian option is the full legalization of illicit drugs and the sharing of information and resources that make all forms of drug use immanently safer for all users.  Part of this strategy requires that we get our terms correct so we can actively shape the debate to reflect the views and priorities of drug users ourselves – defining our needs and the tactics we will employ to finally end the war being waged against us.

No thing exists outside of language:  We look at something, we define it, and then once we collectively agree on that definition, we finally "see" it.  Lacking a definition, a thing does not exist for us.  Sticks and stones may hurt our bones, but degrading words can kill our self-esteem and undermine our best efforts to define our political realities.  In the campaign to end the war on drug users, we MUST define our own terms and insist that others in drug-related/criminalized discourses adopt our language.  They make their living off the backs of our suffering.  If we don't insist on change, absolutely demand it and, most importantly, change our own language, our oppressors will continue to define our use and our characters and we will always come out as the losers.  Let's win this war by re-defining it in our own terms: I’m a drug user, not a “substance abuser” or a “drug addict”.  When I am not using, I am not “clean”, I’m just not using.  When my drug use becomes problematic, I don’t have a “disease”, I am suffering from the repercussions of the war being waged against me, where prohibition causes massive suffering for me and my community by forcing my interaction with the drug trade under-ground and severely limiting the effectiveness of health promotion/harm reduction strategies that might improve my situation.

I want to encourage and support those on drug replacement programs (not "patients") to STOP using pathologized (medicalized) terminology and call a spade a spade.  While each situation is unique, this is what happened for me, and may be familiar to others:  I was in trouble with my junk habit, was dead broke and, at times, suicidaly at the end of my tether; so (lucky that it was available) I utilized an opiate replacement drug (methadone) to free myself up from the oppression caused by PROHIBITION and the criminalized approach to the use of my drug of choice – heroin. This is no apology, it’s a reality. 

Those of you on replacement programs are still drug users; it's just that your current drug use is legal, totally invasive, punitive (think piss testing and rules around the use of other illegal and legal drugs), patronizing as hell and pathologized.  But that's the philosophy, practice and language of those who would keep us down-trodden.  For god's sake, don't empower them by adopting their terminology - challenge them by insisting that they use our terms.  It's the best way to engage in everyday acts of rebellion/revolution and if we all do it, and encourage our service users and colleagues to do it, it won't be long until terms like ”addict", "substance abuser" and "clean" are nightmares from our past. 

Language is political and we can win this political battle if we unite, collectively agree on our terms and systematically employ them in each and every situation we find ourselves in while we fight and win the war against those involved in the illegal drug trade; prioritizing the needs of those most oppressed among us, and understanding the specific human rights violations surrounding each group’s particular relationship to the illicit drug trade.  We can only win the war when we define it on our own terms – in our own terms.