C.E.P.T.A.

The CAMPAIGN for EFFECTIVE PREVENTION and TREATMENT of ADDICTION.

5g. WEASEL WORDS WHICH PROMOTE DRUG USE & ADDICTION

(TRANSCRIBED FROM A RECENT SEMINAR LECTURE)

Usually known by its acronym, CEPTA. (the Campaign for the Effective Prevention and Treatment of Addiction), arranges for the training of suitably qualified persons who will then train addicts in how to take themselves off drug and alcohol usage habits, using a long established international educational method, which assist students to a permanent cure in 69+% of cases - first time through the programme.

In addition CEPTA is well known for its pragmatic approach to drug education based on positive and successful prevention principles, rather than just on information presentation. CEPTA approved prevention training is delivered to schoolchildren from 6 to 11, to teenagers from 11 to 16 and particularly to parents, whose participation is vital in successfully preventing children from taking up drugs.

In this talk, which is one of a series offering prevention guidance to parents and teachers, Kenneth Eckersley reports on how the meanings of everyday English words are being twisted and distorted to justify the "psycho-babble" concepts which many types of 'recognised drug workers', educationalists (including some teachers), drug suppliers, prescribers and distributors - are right now trying to pass-off as so-called "drugs education".

Here is Ken Eckersley, who has somewhat irreverently entitled his talk:

The Ox-Fraud English Dictionary of WEASEL WORDS

We are grateful to Ann Stoker, BA, Principal Consultant to 'Positive Prevention Plus', who in her excellent review of what is actually happening right now in the field of Drug Prevention Education, exposes the development of "weasel words" in the U.K.

Ann in turn gives credit to Otto and Connie Moulton, of the Committees of Correspondence in Boston Massachusetts, for originating the concept of "weasel words".

These are words which are being re-defined or misused to give them a different, sometimes more sinister meaning, or sometimes even a less harmful or less precise meaning, than normal just in order to distract one's attention away from what is really going on.

Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Goebbels, was a past master at this, so that under the cover of "weasel words" some of the greatest atrocities of recent times were committed by a German population mainly being led by their noses down paths that the majority of them would never have contemplated - had the truth not been so skilfully hidden from them.

So weasel words are not just a playful way of putting a point of view, nor are they merely current 'professional' jargon. They are part of a deliberate plot to mislead the mass of our population along paths they would never normally contemplate.

Let's look at some examples:

1) For most people, "treatment" means that a health practitioner is aiming to cure some patient of some illness or condition. But when the condition is heroin addiction, "treatment" is given a new meaning. The main so-called "treatment" is to take the addict off heroin and give him an alternative prescription drug called methadone in its place.

That methadone is even more addictive and more physically destructive is ignored, the user thus remaining a hard-core drug addict – but now at taxpayer's expense.

Would you feel your addiction was being cured if this was your 'treatment'?

2) The term: "misuse" implies that USE is okay and that it is only MIS-use which should be avoided.

This is of course true of solvents or glues, etc., which were never designed or manufactured for human consumption, but it is hardly applicable in regard to illegal drugs sold specifically for people to consume.

If Mum takes sleeping pills, it is misuse for her child to take them. But the child does not comprehend that, so it is "don't use" which is the proper lesson.

3) It is usual - for those who favour drugs - to describe accurate scientific research results as "scare tactics". But facts are facts. Properly collected statistics are vital evidence. Because they may frighten users and pushers, it doesn't stop them from being true.

4) The term: "abuse" is another cover-up. Any USE of illicit drugs is an abuse - not of the drug - but of the user's body and mind, and of the law. But alcohol is legal, and the term "alcohol abuse" is used by the drinks industry and their PR boys to explain away teen-age alcoholism and adult drunkenness as "the drinker's fault" - not the supplier's!

Should your child be blamed for being "a drug abuser" or "a misuser", when the real problem is that he or she is simply "taking" or "using" easily available drugs? More often than not, USE arises from opportunity, and it is the presence of both legal and illicit drugs in our communities which is the basic problem.

Of course every drug user has some responsibility for his or her condition, but deliberately mis-naming youngsters as 'abusers' or 'misusers' is one of the ways the suppliers of legal and prescription drugs side-step their share of the blame.

5) So-called "Harm Reduction" is a phrase and even a banner for those who would see effective prevention undermined. As a genuine ‘use-reduction' message given on a one-to-one basis to known users it was acceptable.

But as a general message to all young people it strongly implies that there is some level of drug taking which can be "harmless".

The clear message given by drug educational materials should always be "do not use".

Other messages are provably unsafe, including those which mention "responsible", "safe", "social", "experimental" and / or "recreational" use - all of which essentially encourage by omitting the "don't use" message. The 'reason' given for leaving out "don't use" is that psychologists don't want users to feel they are doing wrong!

You should know that, in addition to providing free methadone doses to addicts, "harm reduction" includes amongst other things: syringe vending machines, ‘shooting galleries’ (licensed injecting areas), legal possession of small amounts of drugs, the sale of cannabis in chemists and free heroin from the State.

Common to all these factors is that they make it much easier for anyone to begin a drug career whilst also supporting already committed users.

6) "Victimless Crime" is a term often used by those seeking to legalise drug usage. It falsely suggests that no one is hurt by drug use and therefore it should not be a crime. They of course ignore long term effects on themselves, on their unborn children and on those non-users in whose presence they smoke cannabis, crack or whatever.

They ignore the violation of our democratically adopted laws and the proven harm to family relations, friends, colleagues and neighbours, etc., which drug-taking has already inflicted down the years.

They also ignore the cost to the taxpayers of rescuing them from emergency situations, of policing drug induced accidents, of providing detoxification and rehabilitation and even the cost of dosing them with “legal prescription” methadone or some other drug as part of a so-called therapy. As a result, there clearly are victims, and, because we pay the taxes, the victims are you and I.

7) If you were told that some British voters were in favour of "legalising" drugs, you would have no difficulty in understanding that they wanted to make drugs available (probably like alcohol on some sort of licensed basis) to our population at large. And, as surveys have shown, the majority of voters would be against it.

If, on the other hand, you heard that certain people wanted to 'de-criminalise' or 'de-penalise' drugs, would you be as sure of what they intended? Possibly not, because the de-criminalisation and de-penalisation concepts are a little different from legalising and from each other. As a result, not even so-called experts always define them correctly.

If you were asked about "normalisation" of drug use, how would you reply? (This means to legalise what is 'normal' and, to justify themselves, users and pushers claim that drug use is normal. For them it is, but not by any means for the whole of our population.)

Recognise that all these concepts are part and parcel of the same campaign - namely a slow step-by-step deliberate operation to bring about what a majority of our population would vote against - the legalisation of illicit drugs for consumption throughout Britain!

The thin end of this particular wedge is "sympathise". Senior spokesmen for probably the most active pro-legalisation group in the world (namely: NORML, the National Organisation for Reform of Marijuana Laws) 25 years ago boasted (on video): "We will use the medical marijuana issue as a red-herring to give "pot" a good name". And they are still vigorously doing exactly that!

After using our sympathy to gain medical relaxation of present laws, the next part of the wedge is to 'trivialise' the numerous bad effects with falsely based comments like:

"I'm told skiing is more dangerous than pot", or "What's all the fuss about - alcohol is 10 times worse", etc.

So the whole "thin end of the wedge campaign" runs: sympathise, trivialise, glamorise, normalise, liberalise, de-criminalise and finally, legalise.

This aspect of the "legalise drugs campaign" was drawn to our attention by Peter Stoker, Director of the National Drug Prevention Alliance and if, as we now do, you keep your eyes open for this step by step technique for adding illegal poisons to our children's range of drugs choices, you'll be surprised how often you can spot the "thin end of the wedge" in action in newspapers, radio & TV broadcasts, and, most worryingly, in some school ‘drug education’ lectures.

8) Common comments from the cannabis legalisation lobby are: "How little we know about cannabis", or "If we only knew more about cannabis", etc. These remarks are intended to throw doubt on the many proven negative effects of cannabis. But the truth is that since 1965 more than 13,000 scientific research papers on cannabis have been published, and not one of them gave it a clean bill of health. Such news just doesn't seem to get passed on by pushers or users.

If you would like the evidence, these papers are all listed in "An Annotated Bibliography of Marijuana", available from the University of Mississippi's Dept., of Pharmacology.

9) The terms: "the rights of individuals" or "the right to freedom of choice", crop up regularly in drug supporters’ writings and speeches. But nobody's legal rights apply or ever have applied to illegal activities.

And what about the rights of those unfortunate individuals who don't smoke either tobacco, cannabis or crack, but who have to put up with the company of smokers, and the damaging results of drug inhalation and intoxication? Lung cancer is one of those results.

Remember also that “loss of power of choice” is the main feature of drug addiction.

10) Watch out also for the "Anti-Prohibitionist" lobby. They argue that alcohol prohibition didn't work in the U.S. and so drug prohibition will never work anywhere. This is just not true. U.S. Prohibition achieved what it set out to do, which was to reduce the use of alcohol and the health consequences of heavy usage, and these benefits went on for years after prohibition was repealed. It was repealed because Mr Average Drinker (and voter) took exception to being deprived of something they and their fore-fathers had used for a thousand years.

However, the anti-prohibitionists don't mention Alaska where twelve years ago they won the day and started a 5 year run of cannabis de-criminalisation. Police had thought crime would fall, but it rose like mad, and of their relatively small population over 2,000 people were hospitalised for Cannabis Psychosis.

Prohibition was brought back to Alaska in 1992 by a referendum of the whole population. Thirteen years later, their citizens and their economy are still recovering from their 5 years of legalised use. But they’re getting there and with the lesson they learnt, they say you can be sure they'll never legalise any drug ever again.

11) "Informed choice". Often to be heard at the end of some so-called drug education lectures are these words: "Now that you know the facts, it's really your choice whether or not you use drugs". But . . . in what other educational setting do we teach our children: "It's your choice as to whether or not you break the law"?

And would we really give an infant the choice of deciding whether or not to put his or her fingers into the electric power socket?

Everyone should be taught to make responsible decisions for which they can be accountable. But pushing them into decisions to break the law, under the guise of "drugs education" is unacceptable.

12) We are told in some so-called "drugs education" literature: "there are no good or bad drugs, just improper use".

Whilst clarification is needed to differentiate between prescription medicines and dangerous drugs both legal and illicit, outside that context this is a confusing statement which opens the door to the belief that there is an acceptable "proper use" for all types of drugs (including those which are illegal as well as dangerous).

With the term "improper use" we are back again to "misuse" and "abuse", all of which subtly breed the false idea that there must therefore be some acceptable, safe or permitted level of "use", and that the user is the person at fault for not knowing it.

13) "Responsible use" - another term often used by the pro-drugs lobby in their pronouncements on pseudo-prevention, which again gives the false idea that there is some acceptable, safe or proper level of "use". But taking legal drugs not prescribed specifically for you, is harmful to health and irresponsible. So is the use of illicit drugs, which obviously can never be responsible.

Amongst other abilities, perception and judgement are impaired - often grossly - when using any psychoactive drug. Such impairments can continue to affect logical thinking for days, and thus prevent the making of "responsible" decisions.

14) "Controlled use" - is a term again used to give the false idea that there is some safe or acceptable level of "use". But where is the "control". And anyone who believes that street drugs are quality "controlled" by the criminals who make and sell them is bonkers!

Of course most of these terms which give the idea that "some" usage of drugs is safe, are generated by pushers and by the users themselves. Not necessarily to persuade others to use, but as a reassurance to themselves that, whilst other users might suffer some ill-effects, they themselves are 'okay' because they are "responsible" or in "control" or doing it "properly" etc.

In most cases however, that is the drug doing the talking! That is part of the psychological addiction.

15) "Experimental Use" is the term used by some psychologists and sociologists to justify youngsters taking drugs for the first time. It is usually followed by the explanation: "After all, they have to try, or they wouldn't be able to make up their own minds".

It's part of the 'informed choice' ploy, and yet another way of taking advantage of youthful desire to sometimes kick over the traces and do-their-own-thing. But we wouldn't let our children experiment with a red-hot stove to give them the chance of making their own choice about whether to burn their fingers or not! We'd just say "NO!" and find some other way of demonstrating why.

16) Similar remarks apply to: "recreational use". Part of the trivialise ploy. Makes drug-taking an un-serious or amongst friends activity and "okay to do".

However, still awaited is an explanation of how any of this is related to the basic concept of "re-creation", which originates from the idea of healthy renewal. How also does it relate to possibly ruining that friend's life, or, in some cases even to killing them?

17) Next in the same class of statements we have the words: "social use".

Amazing really, when drugs do so much to destroy families, relationships, friendships and most normal forms of social interaction.

So much so that nothing could be more anti-social than drug usage.

18) "Glamorising messages" describes those tongue-in-cheek weasel words which pushers and users utter to sell their destructive wares or to justify their own dependent usage.

They portray drugs as fashionable, ‘sexy’, mind-expanding and capable of enhancing human qualities, including acting as aphrodisiacs - although none of these effects have ever been proved under scientific investigation, and appear to exist only in the user's own fertile drug 'enhanced' imaginations.

19) "Soft drugs". A phrase believed to have been coined by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and PR men, and taken up by the drug-smuggling "barons" as a means of avoiding having the worst effects of drug-taking attached to cannabis and ‘street’ amphetamines, etc., even though psychiatrists are well aware that cannabis and other drugs cause psychosis!

"Soft" implies harmlessness, which is totally untrue, especially in regard to today's cannabis, which is some 10 to 50 times stronger (and much more toxic) than the "pot" of the 1960s. In his endeavours to bring the truth into the drugs arena, the U.K. Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has said he wants this false distinction removed.

20) "Mood altering" implies that the drug under discussion has only a temporary effect on "feelings" or "emotions". In fact what causes these mood changes are specific biological changes in the brain caused by the drug. The more honest terminology would be: "brain modifying"- where "modifying" means spoiling the original design!

Because of the toxic threat to its survival, the body goes through a whole series of metabolic modifications as it endeavours to handle that threat. Except in special circumstances and for a majority of users, these changes are for life.

21) "They're just like . . . . . ". A common ploy of the drug culture is to compare caffeine, sugar or chocolate, etc., to various drugs, both legal and illicit.

By positioning such drugs alongside relatively benign substances, they seek to induce a less harmful concept of drugs. They will also compare mind-altering drugs to milder substances with which their prospective user is familiar. For example, pain killers, medicines and even refreshments, etc.

There is however a vast difference in the chemical make-up of differing substances and a life or death difference in their effects on the human body and mind. Bear in mind that any substance when taken in sufficient quantity can poison the body, but that the nature of illicit drugs (and many on prescription) is such that only a very small or even a minute quantity is able to do so.

22) "I know what I’m doing, this is safe", or: "Just one wouldn’t hurt a fly". The one thing certain about drugs, whether legal, prescription or illicit, is that there is no definition for a safe dose - except . . . . TAKE NOTHING.

The effect of a drug varies wildly and widely from one individual to another, depending on size, weight, sex, body type, age, general condition, what other substance(s) (inc alcohol) he or she may have used, for how long and in what dosages.

Differing psychological conditions from introvert to extrovert and from optimist to pessimist, also have a bearing, so do individual beliefs and views on life, and also different personal habit patterns in relation to diet, sleep and exercise, etc. In addition, the effect on any individual can vary from one time to another for that same person.

It is because of these very considerable variations that the same dose of the same drug can make one youngster "high", can make his or her partner sick to the stomach - and can kill their friend. There's a similar game played with guns. Its called Russian roulette! . . . . . Do you want your children to play?

23) “If you want to get rid of crime, get rid of the laws against drugs then use of drugs would not be a crime”! Life would be easy if this were true.

But what these weasel words ignore is the unavoidable effects which drugs have on an individual’s life, attitudes and ability to earn a living, irrespective of whether they are using illicit or legalised drugs.

The idea that drug users steal or otherwise commit crimes ONLY in order to be able to buy their next drug fix has been totally disproved.

A government sponsored U.S. General Accounting Office study showed that heroin users given free daily supplies of methadone would, in from one-third to one-half of cases, continue to also use heroin and other drugs!

A methadone “freak” is still a hard core drug user. Users of any drug - legal or illicit - are less employable than non-users and, like most of us they still want to keep up with the Jones’s. As a result they want more cash than unemployment pay provides and, with the extra planning time unemployment gives them, well . . . stealing is a relatively easy profession in our open society.

24) “In a democracy, the majority rules, and drug users are a majority”, is another user argument.

Quite true, if you count tobacco, tea and coffee, etc., as well as alcohol.

But these are drugs with an entirely different impact on the individual and the society. Furthermore, we are already doing something about them with the introduction of low-tar cigarettes, de-caffeinated tea and coffee, ‘non’ or ‘low’ alcohol beers and wines, and warnings and prescription restrictions on pharmaceutical and other preparations.

It is, however, a very spurious argument when applied to illicit drugs and other addictive prescription substances such as methadone. It’s a little like proposing that because car drivers are a majority they should be free to have accidents whenever they feel like it!

In fact legalised drug usage would probably give drivers that notion anyway!

25) "Recognised Professional Drugs Agencies", and similar terms and titles. Sound impressive and very official, but are basically nothing more than the cloak of respectability being worn by the psycho-pharmaceutical lobby in their endeavour to appear as the experts and so command the whole field of drugs and drug treatment.

'Treatment' agencies, include various drugs advice centres and clinics - run mainly by psychologists and psychiatrists - which specialise in counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare. In addition to "group therapy" (essentially a blind leading the blind activity) the main "treatments" offered are chemical de-toxification, methadone therapy, various forms of aversion therapy - including drugs intended to make the use of other drugs extremely unpleasant. (e.g.: disulfiram prescribed for alcoholics, makes them flush, gives them headaches, makes them feel nauseous and causes vomiting, etc, if they take even small amounts of alcohol.)

'Drugs education' agencies include suspect groups such as DrugScope, the ISDD, TACADE, Turning Point, Blueprint and the National Drugs Help-line (all of which can also act as treatment referral agencies).

And then there are effective primary prevention organisations such as the National Drug Prevention Alliance, Positive Prevention Plus, Life Education Centres, Narconon, EURAD, PRIDE and D.A.R.E., etc.

There are of course numerous voluntary drugs agencies which may or may not provide effective treatment or positive prevention information. You sort the wheat from the chaff as follows:

i) In the case of 'treatment' agencies find out if they offer an actual "cure" for drug addiction. If "yes", ask how they define a cure. It should be: 'comfortable lifelong abstinence'. Check also that they obtain a cure in more than two-thirds of patients.

ii) However, in the case of 'prevention' agencies, make sure theirs is not a so-called ‘Harm Reduction’ message, but instead is "don't use". For example: "Just Say NO" or "Say NO to Drugs", etc. Any other messages are generally permissive to a greater or lesser degree, and so are not "prevention". They are in fact a form of hidden approval !

26) "The Campaign for Effective Drug Policy" (a.k.a. "TRANSFORM"). One of a bunch of impressive titles which sound as if they may be headed in the direction of sane prevention and/or cure policies in relation to drugs.

But beware! This is a cleverly constructed campaign for the full legalisation of drug distribution and usage, which, irrespective of what its promoters may say, can only result in the development of another massive distribution system on a par with our existing alcoholic drinks industry - and equally profitable.

Here again, the test against which to evaluate such titles and organisations is:

i) are they advocating and actually succeeding in preventing people from starting on drugs? and,

ii) are they advocating and successfully getting people off drugs who are already into a drugs habit, dependency or addiction?

If not, consider that they may be comprised of habitual users wanting to excuse and justify their own law-breaking and addiction, or that they might (knowingly or unknowingly) be a front organisation for some vested commercial or political interest.

"Weasel Words" are with us now, and every day more and more creep into the language. They are intended to influence you, your decisions, your choices, your other activities and, often, to control your life.

To avoid this, you must be aware of them and must keep your eyes and ears open to spot the new ones. Any use of a word you thought you knew but which sounds strange, you should be ready to question, and we give a prize for every new weasel word sent in to us.

Just in case you should think that this whole subject is a little paranoid, consider what happens when you give three different groups of children an essay project on "goodness" but give each of them a different meaning for the word "good".

If you tell group (1) that it means: "brave in the face of the enemy", "courageous" and "ready to sacrifice one's self for comrades and country", you may well receive an essay based on a militaristic society, or some rescue situation.

If you tell group (2) that 'good' means "able to survive at all costs", "crafty, clever and looking after one's self first", "having a good time", and "getting the biggest share by any means possible" you will not be surprised to receive an essay involving successful criminals or perhaps based on the lives of notorious gangsters such as Bonnie and Clyde.

But if you tell group (3) that 'good' means "devoted to prayer and the worship of God", "putting faith first" and "doing charitable deeds", you are likely to receive an essay based on the life of a nun, a monk or a minister - certainly in no way militaristic or criminal.

Just because of the meaning of one word!

Now try this sentence on a few of your friends: "It was noticed that as the crepuscule approached, many of the younger children were frightened, some cried and others went to sleep".

Then ask each of your friends "What's happening?"

Some will say "the train's coming." Others will say it’s a ghost or a dragon, or will give you a whole range of different scenarios - all because of that one word: "crepuscule" which not many people normally use or understand.

Just for the record, it means: "dusk or twilight". Now we all know what's happening don't we! It's getting dark, and the whole original sentence makes sense, it’s a very normal happening and is not really the least bit threatening.

But lack of comprehension of one word in a sentence, can make us feel stupid or at a disadvantage to the other party using that word. The best way to combat this is to use a good dictionary, but if that's not possible, instead of going on feeling stupid, ask the person using it to say exactly what they mean by it. You may even find that he or she doesn't really know - or even perhaps doesn't want to say! Then make sure you check that word in a good dictionary as soon as possible.

One wrong word can be a killer. Like hearing "GO" when, at the cross-roads, your driving instructor said . . . . "NO !"

Thank you. And so we come to question time: . . . . . . . . . . . .

____________________________________________________________________

(SEMINAR MASTER OF CEREMONIES CLOSING STATEMENT AFTER KEN HAD DEALT WITH QUESTIONS)

There are other talks in this series which you may want to hear. But, if you have questions or need further information urgently, then ring the number below and talk things through with Ken or another CEPTA staff member. Everything is in confidence and you don't even have to give your name or that of your youngster. Just know - you can be helped and that they can cure themselves when trained in a viable DIY rehabilitation system.

The number is: (01342) 811099. That's (01342) 811099. Thank you and bye-bye.

Continue on sub-menu 5 Return to Main Menu