4 ms·

"substance abuse" is such a weird term.

by rustybolt 3y ago

foobarbecue 3y ago
a euphemism for sure
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Is it though? The word "abuse" is pretty strong. If I'm abusing substances it's not like I'm just having a puff now and then do I? The term "substance" is a bit generic, I grant you that. But does that make it an euphemism just because the exact substance is not specified?
  - serf 3y ago
    >If I'm abusing substances it's not like I'm just having a puff now and then do I? we can agree on that, but the phrase has been bandied around in the legal/law-enforcement community enough that it's clear that the definition is generally : if it's illegal, it's always abuse. If it's legal it's only abuse if Uncle Bob is nodding off at x-mas dinner and stumbling into the tree. There seems to be a strong inclination to 'help' the people that are generally a nuisance to other people -- which is to say that the 'help' provided is a way to keep the social status quo for others, not to provide the 'substance abuse victim' with support.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      Sure. My point is that this is not what an euphemisms is. An euphemism is a mild word substituted for what you'd consider a harsh word. What you're describing is the use of a harsh word to reference a specific thing that is frowned upon by sole group and they don't want to use a too loaded word to protect themselves from being labeled bigots or whatnot. Consider this: A blind person can be called visually impaired. That's an euphemism. There do exist visually impaired people who are not blind. Technically a blind person is also visually impaired. Calling a blind person visually impaired is a way to soften the language. On the other hand, if every time you say "visually impaired" you only mean "blind" and all the non-blind people that are nevertheless visually impaired you no longer call them visually impaired, then that's no longer an euphemism, but the word just changed the meaning (as words do, often through the mechanism of euphemisms). For examples "odour" is not an euphemism nowadays, although when the word got borrowed from french it was
  - jojobas 3y ago
    I suppose you could argue "substance" includes raw plants/mushrooms that are not technically drugs, still "substance abuse" is an attempt not to mention drugs.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Haha wow judging by the downvotes I guess people disagree! I meant that "substance" is a euphemism for psychoactive drugs. I guess the whole term is jargony as well. It's fine, shrug.
ycnhh 3y ago
maybe it should be 'abused by substances'
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Interesting role reversal. The term is indeed ambiguous!
adrianmsmith 3y ago
Why?

"substance abuse" is such a weird term.

foobarbecue 3y ago

a euphemism for sure

ithkuil 3y ago
Is it though? The word "abuse" is pretty strong. If I'm abusing substances it's not like I'm just having a puff now and then do I? The term "substance" is a bit generic, I grant you that. But does that make it an euphemism just because the exact substance is not specified?
- serf 3y ago
  >If I'm abusing substances it's not like I'm just having a puff now and then do I? we can agree on that, but the phrase has been bandied around in the legal/law-enforcement community enough that it's clear that the definition is generally : if it's illegal, it's always abuse. If it's legal it's only abuse if Uncle Bob is nodding off at x-mas dinner and stumbling into the tree. There seems to be a strong inclination to 'help' the people that are generally a nuisance to other people -- which is to say that the 'help' provided is a way to keep the social status quo for others, not to provide the 'substance abuse victim' with support.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    Sure. My point is that this is not what an euphemisms is. An euphemism is a mild word substituted for what you'd consider a harsh word. What you're describing is the use of a harsh word to reference a specific thing that is frowned upon by sole group and they don't want to use a too loaded word to protect themselves from being labeled bigots or whatnot. Consider this: A blind person can be called visually impaired. That's an euphemism. There do exist visually impaired people who are not blind. Technically a blind person is also visually impaired. Calling a blind person visually impaired is a way to soften the language. On the other hand, if every time you say "visually impaired" you only mean "blind" and all the non-blind people that are nevertheless visually impaired you no longer call them visually impaired, then that's no longer an euphemism, but the word just changed the meaning (as words do, often through the mechanism of euphemisms). For examples "odour" is not an euphemism nowadays, although when the word got borrowed from french it was
- jojobas 3y ago
  I suppose you could argue "substance" includes raw plants/mushrooms that are not technically drugs, still "substance abuse" is an attempt not to mention drugs.
foobarbecue 3y ago
Haha wow judging by the downvotes I guess people disagree! I meant that "substance" is a euphemism for psychoactive drugs. I guess the whole term is jargony as well. It's fine, shrug.

ycnhh 3y ago

maybe it should be 'abused by substances'

foobarbecue 3y ago
Interesting role reversal. The term is indeed ambiguous!

adrianmsmith 3y ago

Why?