by Anzar Ul Aijaz
This linguistic approach emphasises their humanity first, recognising their inherent right to a life of quality, dignity, and worth. By framing the conversation in this way, we remove stereotypes and barriers that often prevent individuals from seeking treatment or reintegrating into society.
Drug addiction, or substance use disorder (SUD), is a pervasive issue in Kashmir. But what exactly is drug addiction? Who is the person who becomes dependent on drugs or substances? Are they a criminal? Are they less than human? Do they not possess the same rights as the rest of us? Are they not a part of our society? Who are they, truly?
The answer is straightforward: they are patients, no different from anyone else suffering from an illness. Drug addiction, or SUD, is a chronic and compulsive mental health disorder. It is characterised by a person’s inability to break free from their dependence on a particular substance, even when they are fully aware of the harm it causes. This is not a matter of choice or moral failing. Once dependency takes hold, the brain and body demand the substance relentlessly. Without it, the individual may endure withdrawal symptoms ranging from severe pain, nausea, and restlessness to vomiting, seizures, drowsiness, and, in extreme cases, death.
A person may initially turn to drugs or substances for a variety of reasons: for fun, enjoyment, experimentation, by accident, or under the influence of peers. However, once their body becomes dependent on the substance, they often find themselves unable to break free without help. Attempting to stop can trigger severe withdrawal symptoms, ranging from physical pain to psychological distress, making recovery on their own nearly impossible. This is where medical intervention becomes essential. Effective treatment requires managing these symptoms and detoxifying the body, addressing the biological and medical dimensions of addiction.
Yet, addiction treatment is not solely a matter of biology. Equally critical is the psychosocial aspect, which encompasses the psychological and social factors that influence recovery. These elements are deeply interconnected.
One of the most powerful ways to stigmatise an individual or a group is through the act of labelling. When we attach a label to someone, it often becomes their defining characteristic, overshadowing all other aspects of their identity. This label can follow them for the rest of their life, shaping how they are perceived and treated by others. In the context of drug dependencies, terms such as drug addict, drug user, drug player, charsi, or shoudeh are frequently used. These labels reduce the individual to a single, often negative, trait, stripping away their humanity and reinforcing stigma. Rather than being seen as a patient in need of care, they are branded with a social identity that leads to feelings of unacceptance and isolation within their family and community.
This practice of labelling does not stop at mere words; it fuels stereotyping and perpetuates judgment. Those struggling with substance use disorder (SUD) are often viewed through a lens of moral failure or criminality, rather than as individuals battling a chronic health condition. This constant judgment demotivates and discourages them from seeking the treatment they desperately need. It is this cycle of stigma and alienation, I believe, that contributes significantly to the high prevalence of SUD in our valley. Until we shift our perspective and begin to see drug addiction as a disease and those affected as patients, meaningful change will remain elusive.
The consequences of failing to reintegrate individuals with SUD into society are profound. They experience a deep sense of social isolation and hopelessness when met with rejection and hostility. This, in turn, can drive them towards anti-social behaviour, as we so often witness today. The root of this issue lies in our collective failure to extend empathy and take responsibility as a community. So, what is the correct terminology to use when referring to someone dependent on substances?
The appropriate term is a person living with substance use disorder”. This phrasing is deliberate and significant. It emphasises, first and foremost, that they are a person – a human being with inherent rights and dignity. They are not defined solely by their condition. This terminology acknowledges their right to be reintegrated into society, to live without judgment, and to be seen as more than a single aspect of their identity. It recognises that they are living with a disease that requires treatment, not a moral failing that condemns them to a life of exclusion. By adopting this language, we take a crucial step towards fostering a more compassionate and inclusive society.
When applied to other contexts, the same principle of using person-first language can have a profoundly positive impact, helping dismantle the stigma associated with various conditions. For instance, terms such as a person living with disability(rather than disabled, specially-abled, or physically challenged),a person living with HIV/AIDS (instead of HIV person), or person living with mental health issues (as opposed to mentally retarded or mentally challenged) shift the focus from the condition to the individual. This linguistic approach emphasises their humanity first, recognising their inherent right to a life of quality, dignity, and worth. By framing the conversation in this way, we remove stereotypes and barriers that often prevent individuals from seeking treatment or reintegrating into society.
While authorities and the medical community play a crucial role in addressing these challenges, it is essential to recognise that drug addiction, like many other conditions, is a bio-psycho-social disease. Combating it requires more than just medical intervention; it demands collective effort from all members of society.
It is important to clarify that this article refers specifically to individuals living with substance use disorder – patients who are struggling with addiction – and not to those involved in the business or trafficking of drugs. The distinction is critical, as conflating the two perpetuates harmful stereotypes and undermines efforts to support those seeking recovery.
(The author is a social work scholar at the University of Kashmir. Ideas are personal.)
