Here´s a little text I wrote about the misleading terminology in drug discussions.. comments welcome 
Considerations on drug-related vocabulary and discussions
In the 1950s, two linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, brought the so called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which says that thought is determined by language. For these two linguists, the lack of a certain word in a specific language, for example, will imply in the lack of possibility for the speakers of that language to even be able to think of that concept. So if a society doesn’t have the word ´time´, they could not think of time. This hypothesis was very criticised, though, by specialists like Steve Pinker who refused this idea of radical linguistic determinism. In spite of these criticisms, the idea of some kind of connection thought and language is still valid, maybe not in such a causal deterministic way but existing nonetheless
We know that in the media, for example, the words affect the content and meaning of a message. Two headlines talking about the same thing could say “guru drinks booze to supposedly feel God” or “Priest participates in ceremony with holy sacrament”. In the particular case of the discussion about drugs, we see clearly the effect of words and how public opinion is affected and/or reflected by the terminology in use. It is pertinent, therefore, that we deepen in this linguistic subject so that we may provide, at least indirectly, with a help to society in dealing with different substances in a less biased way.
An aspect that permeates this discussion is the semantic poverty in general. The word ´drugs´, for example, is largely used in our society in many misleading ways. The term ´drugged´ or ´druggie´, for example, has no practical function or social benefit, and reflects a generalizing and prejudiced view. It is fundamental that there is a clear distinction in which substance we are talking about, so we can more accurately access if there is use or abuse, if help is needed and if so, how to act. We need to know if it is somebody addicted to legal tranquilizers, taking a headache pill, drinking his weekly wine glass or having a heroin overdose. “Drugged” is not enough.
And here we get to another crucial matter: The fact that the word ´drugs´ in the common use is connected only with illegal substances. A clear example of this is the common expression of ´alcohol and drugs´, used not only popularly but in companies, propaganda, scientific research and in the academic world. Alcohol is a drug, so it does not make sense to talk of drugs and alcohol. The distinction between legal and illegal drugs is not an objective one, connected to the effects and possible damage and side effects, but a distinction of political and historical motivations (which as casey hardison well said, bares resemblance with the motivations that maintained racism, laws against women voting and homosexualism, etc) . It is of extreme importance, therefore, that when we used the word ´drugs´, we include all the different classes of substances, legal and illegal, including alcohol, tobacco and medication. If not, the speech will only reproduce the political bias, lack of objectivity and consequently increase the lack of understanding, making it difficult for society to find solutions to better deal with all these different substances.
More specifically in the case of the so called hallucinogens, there are several pertinent considerations to make. First is about this definition itself. The term hallucinogens is inappropriate because it is based on incorrect, incomplete or misleading premises. The word itself denotes an over-valuing of the visual aspect of the experience, whilst a phenomenological analysis will show that the vision is not the only and neither necessarily the main part of the effect. Aspects such as the alternative corporal perceptions, different feelings, deep insights and sensation of transcendence, ego loss and unity, for example, are also just as fundamental.
Another argument against this definition is the fact that a hallucination is in general considered to be a perception without any base on reality, which in many levels does not accurately describe what happens when ingesting these substances. The perceptions and visions are indeed in many cases strong and bring a sensation of truth, but it is not true that in the majority of cases they are mistaken for consensus reality. It may seem to the user be valid in a deep way, but in most cases it is experienced qualitatively different than consensus reality, therefore cannot be called ´true hallucinations´ (which would be the case in intoxication by poisons or ingesting deleriant drugs such as Datura). Besides, we see that in great part the visions are not disconnected with the reality of the individual because they bring forward symbolic content which is important and useful to the experience and context of the individuals, possibly being objects of learning and later on basis for changes and practical actions in their lives.
The term hallucinogens also brings a charge from the western psychiatric model where there is a distinction between ´normal´ and ´pathological´, based not on the capacity of the individual to deal with the experience (and the possibility of incorporating the visions positively and in practical ways in his reality), but in a statistic analysis of what is common, usual, consensual, felt by the majority. I will not extend about the subject of the dictatorship of normality, but will simply mention that the great changes and paradigmatic transformations in the history of mankind happened exactly by people who did not fit in normality (Copernicus, Einstein, Tesla, all the initial spiritual visionaries and so on). What we must consider is the contextual value of the experience and how one deals with it, and not whether it is common or not, since someone may have unusual ideas but be able to act in the consensual world and transform society positively. For us to arrive in such a change of values, we need to before surpass the pejorative and misleading definitions such as hallucinogens.
In the psychiatric terminology, the psychoactive substances are divided in three main categories: Psycholeptic (tranquilizers, downers), Psychoanaleptic (arousers, uppers) and psychodysleptic (hallucinogens, reality perturbing/distorting). Once again we see a reducing and generalizing classification, whose limits impede it from dealing with the dynamic and crucial differences in the effect of drugs. Not to extend myself too much, in the case of the psychodysleptic, we clearly see the idea that it´s effects are undesirable, toxic, perturbing, distorting, negatively changing the perception of reality. There is no opening for viewing the possible therapeutic efficacy (at least not in the definition itself), as studies show, or neither any spiritual validity, as we see in it´s use in cults and religions, or in creativity enhancement, as was the case with nobel prize winners or in the silicon valley technological advancements. In other words many, if not most, of the cases do not fit the description. If experience systematically contradicts a classification, then we have a clear sign that this classification needs to change.
There are other three definitions which appear more appropriate to describe hallucinogenic drugs. First one is psychedelics. Etymologically it is maybe the one that more closely describes the experience, but the problem is it´s connotation with the hippie movement of the 60´s and the abuses then experienced. The word is a neologism coined by the British psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derived from the ancient greek ψυχή (psyche) = Soul or Mind and δήλος (delos) = Manifesting. In other words, psychedelics are substances that manifest or bring to the surface the soul/mind. This definition is in accordance with the experience, specially if we analyze the fact that, unlike many other drugs, the psychedelics have very unpredictable effects, highly dependent on the person ingesting, his/her mental content and history and the context where it is taken.
Another definition brought on by a group of ethnobotanists (Ott, Wasson, Schultes, Ruck, Bigwood, Staples) is entheogens. It´s origin is also in the ancient greek where ἔνθεος (entheos) = God or divinity inside and γενέσθαι (genesthe) = generates. The entheogens, therefore, “generate the inner divinity (or divine inspiration)”. Here we also see a connection between these substances with the transcendental realm, and also the characteristic of them being used in sacred rituals. It is possible, though, to argument that entheogens would not be exactly a synonym to psychedelics because the first ones would necessarily be connected to spirituality, while psychedelics may be used by atheists and agnostics to enhance creativity, for example, without touching the question of spirituality.
Last, we have the term ´psychointegrators´ brought by Dr. Michael Winkelman, which defines an important aspect of these substances: the power to integrate different psychological processes, uniting non-linguistic behaviors and socio-emotional dynamics with rational thoughts. Besides, in the neurobiological realm, they promote, through limbic discharges, the interhemispheric synchronization.
Leaving behind a little the psychedelic part, there is still an expression that needs to be revised: altered states of consciousness. The word altered brings a connotation of something negative, incorrect, not normal. This is connected, of course, with the productivity ideals of the post modern rationalist capitalistic society, where if something is not connected to profit, production, material consumerism and tangible results possible of being transmitted and proved, then it is not valid or valued. I suggest the use of the expression alternative states of consciousness instead, because this brings an idea of equally valid alternatives and options of experiencing the world, each with it´s own unique characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, strong points and weaknesses.
We see, therefore, that when addressing the subject of psychoactive substances, it is important that we try to obtain a semantic enrichment and etymological accuracy, with adequate non-biased definitions to what we talk about, so we can deal in proper ways with each situation and case, avoiding prejudice and mistaken conclusion. To change the world we must first change ourselves and how we express ourselves, looking for ways to achieve a more encompassing understanding between all.
Considerations on drug-related vocabulary and discussions
In the 1950s, two linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, brought the so called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which says that thought is determined by language. For these two linguists, the lack of a certain word in a specific language, for example, will imply in the lack of possibility for the speakers of that language to even be able to think of that concept. So if a society doesn’t have the word ´time´, they could not think of time. This hypothesis was very criticised, though, by specialists like Steve Pinker who refused this idea of radical linguistic determinism. In spite of these criticisms, the idea of some kind of connection thought and language is still valid, maybe not in such a causal deterministic way but existing nonetheless
We know that in the media, for example, the words affect the content and meaning of a message. Two headlines talking about the same thing could say “guru drinks booze to supposedly feel God” or “Priest participates in ceremony with holy sacrament”. In the particular case of the discussion about drugs, we see clearly the effect of words and how public opinion is affected and/or reflected by the terminology in use. It is pertinent, therefore, that we deepen in this linguistic subject so that we may provide, at least indirectly, with a help to society in dealing with different substances in a less biased way.
An aspect that permeates this discussion is the semantic poverty in general. The word ´drugs´, for example, is largely used in our society in many misleading ways. The term ´drugged´ or ´druggie´, for example, has no practical function or social benefit, and reflects a generalizing and prejudiced view. It is fundamental that there is a clear distinction in which substance we are talking about, so we can more accurately access if there is use or abuse, if help is needed and if so, how to act. We need to know if it is somebody addicted to legal tranquilizers, taking a headache pill, drinking his weekly wine glass or having a heroin overdose. “Drugged” is not enough.
And here we get to another crucial matter: The fact that the word ´drugs´ in the common use is connected only with illegal substances. A clear example of this is the common expression of ´alcohol and drugs´, used not only popularly but in companies, propaganda, scientific research and in the academic world. Alcohol is a drug, so it does not make sense to talk of drugs and alcohol. The distinction between legal and illegal drugs is not an objective one, connected to the effects and possible damage and side effects, but a distinction of political and historical motivations (which as casey hardison well said, bares resemblance with the motivations that maintained racism, laws against women voting and homosexualism, etc) . It is of extreme importance, therefore, that when we used the word ´drugs´, we include all the different classes of substances, legal and illegal, including alcohol, tobacco and medication. If not, the speech will only reproduce the political bias, lack of objectivity and consequently increase the lack of understanding, making it difficult for society to find solutions to better deal with all these different substances.
More specifically in the case of the so called hallucinogens, there are several pertinent considerations to make. First is about this definition itself. The term hallucinogens is inappropriate because it is based on incorrect, incomplete or misleading premises. The word itself denotes an over-valuing of the visual aspect of the experience, whilst a phenomenological analysis will show that the vision is not the only and neither necessarily the main part of the effect. Aspects such as the alternative corporal perceptions, different feelings, deep insights and sensation of transcendence, ego loss and unity, for example, are also just as fundamental.
Another argument against this definition is the fact that a hallucination is in general considered to be a perception without any base on reality, which in many levels does not accurately describe what happens when ingesting these substances. The perceptions and visions are indeed in many cases strong and bring a sensation of truth, but it is not true that in the majority of cases they are mistaken for consensus reality. It may seem to the user be valid in a deep way, but in most cases it is experienced qualitatively different than consensus reality, therefore cannot be called ´true hallucinations´ (which would be the case in intoxication by poisons or ingesting deleriant drugs such as Datura). Besides, we see that in great part the visions are not disconnected with the reality of the individual because they bring forward symbolic content which is important and useful to the experience and context of the individuals, possibly being objects of learning and later on basis for changes and practical actions in their lives.
The term hallucinogens also brings a charge from the western psychiatric model where there is a distinction between ´normal´ and ´pathological´, based not on the capacity of the individual to deal with the experience (and the possibility of incorporating the visions positively and in practical ways in his reality), but in a statistic analysis of what is common, usual, consensual, felt by the majority. I will not extend about the subject of the dictatorship of normality, but will simply mention that the great changes and paradigmatic transformations in the history of mankind happened exactly by people who did not fit in normality (Copernicus, Einstein, Tesla, all the initial spiritual visionaries and so on). What we must consider is the contextual value of the experience and how one deals with it, and not whether it is common or not, since someone may have unusual ideas but be able to act in the consensual world and transform society positively. For us to arrive in such a change of values, we need to before surpass the pejorative and misleading definitions such as hallucinogens.
In the psychiatric terminology, the psychoactive substances are divided in three main categories: Psycholeptic (tranquilizers, downers), Psychoanaleptic (arousers, uppers) and psychodysleptic (hallucinogens, reality perturbing/distorting). Once again we see a reducing and generalizing classification, whose limits impede it from dealing with the dynamic and crucial differences in the effect of drugs. Not to extend myself too much, in the case of the psychodysleptic, we clearly see the idea that it´s effects are undesirable, toxic, perturbing, distorting, negatively changing the perception of reality. There is no opening for viewing the possible therapeutic efficacy (at least not in the definition itself), as studies show, or neither any spiritual validity, as we see in it´s use in cults and religions, or in creativity enhancement, as was the case with nobel prize winners or in the silicon valley technological advancements. In other words many, if not most, of the cases do not fit the description. If experience systematically contradicts a classification, then we have a clear sign that this classification needs to change.
There are other three definitions which appear more appropriate to describe hallucinogenic drugs. First one is psychedelics. Etymologically it is maybe the one that more closely describes the experience, but the problem is it´s connotation with the hippie movement of the 60´s and the abuses then experienced. The word is a neologism coined by the British psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derived from the ancient greek ψυχή (psyche) = Soul or Mind and δήλος (delos) = Manifesting. In other words, psychedelics are substances that manifest or bring to the surface the soul/mind. This definition is in accordance with the experience, specially if we analyze the fact that, unlike many other drugs, the psychedelics have very unpredictable effects, highly dependent on the person ingesting, his/her mental content and history and the context where it is taken.
Another definition brought on by a group of ethnobotanists (Ott, Wasson, Schultes, Ruck, Bigwood, Staples) is entheogens. It´s origin is also in the ancient greek where ἔνθεος (entheos) = God or divinity inside and γενέσθαι (genesthe) = generates. The entheogens, therefore, “generate the inner divinity (or divine inspiration)”. Here we also see a connection between these substances with the transcendental realm, and also the characteristic of them being used in sacred rituals. It is possible, though, to argument that entheogens would not be exactly a synonym to psychedelics because the first ones would necessarily be connected to spirituality, while psychedelics may be used by atheists and agnostics to enhance creativity, for example, without touching the question of spirituality.
Last, we have the term ´psychointegrators´ brought by Dr. Michael Winkelman, which defines an important aspect of these substances: the power to integrate different psychological processes, uniting non-linguistic behaviors and socio-emotional dynamics with rational thoughts. Besides, in the neurobiological realm, they promote, through limbic discharges, the interhemispheric synchronization.
Leaving behind a little the psychedelic part, there is still an expression that needs to be revised: altered states of consciousness. The word altered brings a connotation of something negative, incorrect, not normal. This is connected, of course, with the productivity ideals of the post modern rationalist capitalistic society, where if something is not connected to profit, production, material consumerism and tangible results possible of being transmitted and proved, then it is not valid or valued. I suggest the use of the expression alternative states of consciousness instead, because this brings an idea of equally valid alternatives and options of experiencing the world, each with it´s own unique characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, strong points and weaknesses.
We see, therefore, that when addressing the subject of psychoactive substances, it is important that we try to obtain a semantic enrichment and etymological accuracy, with adequate non-biased definitions to what we talk about, so we can deal in proper ways with each situation and case, avoiding prejudice and mistaken conclusion. To change the world we must first change ourselves and how we express ourselves, looking for ways to achieve a more encompassing understanding between all.
