Why do the media use this euphemism? Why not call a spade a spade? Instead of substance abuse, call it drug abuse-what is so hard about telling the truth?
It isn’t as if nobody knows what is going on here…better yet, how about “drug use”?
it includes alcohol too, no? which I guess is actually a drug, but I think “substance abuse” is shorthand for drugs and/or alcohol abuse.
Yeah. The definition of “drug” is not really agreed-upon by anyone. Most people consider “drugs” to be manmade. Are hallucinogenic fungi drugs? How about those toads that people lick? Wild peyote?
There’s also the misuse of manmade substances that aren’t supposed to be drugs. Like sniffing paint.
Any terminology that serves to undercut the artificial (yet pervasive) distinction between alcohol and other mind-altering drugs gets my stamp of approval. “Substance abuse” is a winner.
…glue, butane, and so on - plenty of which are a mighty dangerous way to go chasing a high.
And how about people who overeat on bread and drink too much wine or is that transubstantiation abuse?
“Use” and “abuse” are not interchangeable terms, either.
Because they prefer the term …
nope, can’t do it.
The term substance abuse also leads to people describing themselves or others as “substance-free”, which almost always makes me laugh.
Because that would include people taking regular over-the-counter or prescription drugs like they’re supposed to.
There are all kinds of drugs of choice, and “substance abuse” is a good catch-all.
Don’t most folks in recovery describe themselves as sober? (Whether it’s drugs/alcohol/whatever).
I assume the term “substance abuse” comes from the notion of “controlled substances” as defined in the (U.S.) Controlled Sustances Act of 1970. This law outlines five categories (Schedules) of controlled substances. Steroids, for instance, are covered under Schedule III. The categories are not based on legality but on the potential for misuse, level of physical and psychological addiction, and whether it has a currently acceptable medical use.
Because if you describe things in terms of people who abuse things and people who use them responsibly you can continue to perpetuate the culture of shame that surrounds addiction. If you really want to call a spade a spade call it what it is. Addiction.
This way they can PC the term. Like on Wikipedia they are now putting caffeine in the same frame as addiction like alcohol and other drugs. OK I’ll admit caffeine is addictive, but it’s hardly like alcohol or drugs. No one’s life was ruined by caffeine. Except on that commerical where the wife saya “He never has a second cup of coffee at home.”
Because some people don’t see alcohol or marijuana as drugs they use the generic “substance,” this way they can also include addictive but benign substances in it and lessen the shock of it.
“Just an accident going somewhere to happen…” 
(See don’t ask’s post if you don’t get it.)
I don’t know that this fits, frankly. That guy I knew in college who huffed air conditioning refrigerant couldn’t have been addicted to the stuff as he had never done that before.
That didn’t keep him from doing considerable damage to his lungs.
Substance abuse seems descriptive enough. Generally I don’t go for PC language, but in this particular case it seems to me the terms drug abuse or addiction weren’t capturing the wide range of behavior swirling around the issue.
Saying caffeine is as addictive as alcohol or other habit-forming drugs is not calling it a home-wrecker.
Wait, who doesn’t see pot as a drug?
Oh, plenty of people who will gladly talk to you for hours after closing time about, “it’s natural, 'cause it comes from the Earth, ya know”.