From "Overdose" to "Poisoning" - Two polar opposite reasons for advocating the change in language
Interesting how the term "poisoning" (in place of "overdose") is advocated in two VERY different politically-loaded ways, by two different factions toward opposite goals.
One faction uses the term "poisoning" to mark how overdoses are (systemically, indirectly) the result of prohibition. Because of prohibition, people cannot know the dosage or contents of what they're putting in their bodies, and the substances are maximally unregulated. According to this view, legalization or some kind of regulated safe supply is the solution.
The other faction uses the term "poisoning" to mark how overdoses are (individually, somewhat directly) the result of individual substance dealers and traffickers, who adulterate the substances and sell it in erratic doses with ever-changing contents. According to this view, the solution is even more prohibition and enforcement to crack down on dealers/traffickers.
The pro-legalization viewpoint is overwhelmingly the more correct one, as I have continually argued. The more systemic approach is more explanatory as a theory, and vastly more promising as a viable real-world solution. We can much more efficiently (let alone ethically) target the incentives to change how substances are provided and used-- not whether substances are provided and used.
But in terms of political philosophy of language, it's an interesting contrast between two VASTLY different rationales for insisting on the "poisoning, not overdose" terminology. The exact same change from Word-A to Word-B, for polar opposite rationales.
Language matters-- but so does context. It supports what I've been saying for years, which is that replacing one term with another "because it has better political implications" depends immensely on the context of who is advocating the new language and why. It further debunks the notion that certain changes to our language are intrinsically oppressive or intrinsically liberatory.
The exact same terminology-change could have two opposite effects, depending on what sort of movement, theory, framework, agenda, and value-system it is embedded within and in the service of.













