Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Heroin Addiction in the UK

Similarly, the term MSM is men who have sex with men - more inclusive than terms that only relate to self-identified gay men, and obviously includes men who don't identify as such.
Much the same as 'alcoholic' doesn't encompass everyone whose alcohol use / consumption is problematic from a health / social point of view , also with MSM there's the the whole overlay of 'It's only gay if you recieve' ( as i doubt that 'football shirt' in It's a Sin would consider himself a gay man even though he was having sex with Colin and seemingly likely the person who gave Colin HIV )
 
Last edited:
Someone in my family was murdered by a friend recently. They were both addicted to heroin, and this was said to have played a big part in it.

It's a nasty drug, but the prohibition of this and all other drugs is not the way forward.

It should be free on the NHS to anyone who needs it, and harm reduction and therapy/help/whatever provided as required.

Even if you're strongly anti-drugs, hate the NHS, think users are scum or whatever - the economics of it alone would be a game-changer. Reduced theft, smaller prison bills, and probably reduced NHS bills due to shit like fentanyl poisoning and other complications.
 
How is it a euphemism?

I’m not sure it’s semantic range is useful enough to be a substitute for anything*, but if it is a term intended to be considered non-pejorative in place of a previously used pejorative term, then it’s a euphemism.

* - I looked up the term and it said pwud referred to “people who use drugs for pleasure, medicinal or other reasons”, which seems to include just about everyone.

edit: on looking it up a second time I found “individual who has used, abused, or is dependent on a dangerous drug.”

More specific, but hardly value-neutral.
 
Last edited:
Hasn’t heard the term “pwud” before.
Can’t see any improvement over older terms tbh.

I'm assuming you mean drug user, or drug misuse or do you mean other older terms?

Sure not all people who use drugs will like it and maybe the phrase will change, but at least it's recognising I am a person and I don't need to be ashamed of the fact that I use drugs and that's all there is to me. We do need a way to be able to talk about people who use drugs collectively due to the specific challenges they face, but of course language changes all the time and there are problems with people first language potentially.

At the risk of going on a tangent so many people still use the words like junkie, crackhead, kethead, zombies, or any other stigmatising language that is often used by the press, society and services to reduce people to their substance use rather than seeing the whole person.

And those words above particularly Junkie, Crackhead and Zombies are usually used to describe people who are from poor working class communities that use particular substances that already face a huge amount of discrimination. It is not very often leveled at people who use those substances but can maintain certain levels of living and have access to better health care.

Like even the word clean can be really problematic even though it is often used by people who have been, or are going through making changes to their substance use. I knew someone who would talk about being clean, but when they were emotionally dysregulating they would talk about how disgusting and dirty they are due to their substance use that was mainly linked to unresolved trauma that they had not had the opportunity to work through. They were not dirty because of their substance use. That is the sort of stigma that words can reinforce and I think it is important to pick apart sometimes.

When people from a particular group start to use language themselves as a part of taking control of it that is different. I'm not saying these words could never be used, but language matters.

I’m not sure it’s semantic range is useful enough to be a substitute for anything*, but if it is a term intended to be considered non-pejorative in place of a previously used pejorative term, then it’s a euphemism.

* - I looked up the term and it said pwud referred to “people who use drugs for pleasure, medicinal or other reasons”, which seems to include just about everyone.
Exactly. The vast majority of people use drugs so why do we consistently label people who use drugs that are illegal as different and what barriers does that put Infront of them being able to access the correct support. Why don't we call coffee drinkers drug users? They might sometimes describe themselves as an addict on a self depreciating way, but it doesn't hold the same weight and history that it does for someone who uses an illegal drug. (And some people self describe as an addict and find that empowering which is also fine to be clear.)

I have to do a lot of explaining to people about how Alcohol and Caffeine are still drugs it's an uphill battle at times.

Edit; just saw your edit - I'd contest the last bit drug abuse is a contested word too, but I've written enough.
 
Last edited:
Someone in my family was murdered by a friend recently. They were both addicted to heroin, and this was said to have played a big part in it.

It's a nasty drug, but the prohibition of this and all other drugs is not the way forward.

It should be free on the NHS to anyone who needs it, and harm reduction and therapy/help/whatever provided as required.

Even if you're strongly anti-drugs, hate the NHS, think users are scum or whatever - the economics of it alone would be a game-changer. Reduced theft, smaller prison bills, and probably reduced NHS bills due to shit like fentanyl poisoning and other complications.
Hate the NHS?, what an odd thing to include in that list
 
When I see MSM I think 'Main Stream Media'.
without context , quite probably although the term 'mainstream media' does tend to have or has had Alt-right associations , primarily from the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Leennon claining their fantasising is the norm and the amplification of such narratives by main stream broadcast media claiming to be an 'alternative' such as GBeebies and Faux News


In context ( public health ) MSM would mean men who have sex with men
 
Last edited:
So right wing you hate what it costs? Probably fits quite well.
I really don't know, fez hasn't made it clear and likely wasn't at all central to the point he was making, just an odd position to attribute to anyone imo.
 
Way back when I was young and naive, sat towards the back of an empty last bus home, discreetly rolling a little spliff for the walk, a large built and heavily tattooed man boarded and sat right behind me. I'd already put my kit away but clocked a heavy heavy smell of weed. I glanced in the window reflection to see the guy rolling up a big fattie. Quite afraid of him, I didn't say a word. A couple of minutes later he says hey, lad. I'm shitting my pants but had no choice but to engage. He says swap you a bud. Not a question, more of an order. I'm thinking fuck I've got about a gram on me soon to be nothing.... Within about 2 mins of talking to him, he's given me a solid couple gram nug and a lump of pollen. He told me to never ever touch lady H, crack or coke. It'll fuck you forever and you'll never be free. Words I live by still today. It made realise that humans come in all shapes and sizes but some of the best ones are those who've been to hell and back.
 
Similarly, the term MSM is men who have sex with men - more inclusive than terms that only relate to self-identified gay men, and obviously includes men who don't identify as such.
I saw a clip from a Reel describing how British gangsters include within their number include MSMs, "dealing gear and sucking pole" as they put it.
 
Back
Top Bottom