Will changing the words cure the problem?

What’s in a name? Plenty, if it’s the wrong one. Spin doctors the world over have tried to change our language and the way we talk. Many in the NHS and government bodies are convinced a chair holds meetings instead of a chairman (or woman, if you really want to be politically correct).

The police are experts in word recycling. They no longer talk about a person being stabbed to death but use the less dramatic phrase “fatally stabbed”.

There are many shops that now promote gender-neutral clothes, although it is still too cold for me to switch to using a draughty skirt.

Now the Global Commission on Drugs Policy says the media needs to alter its vocabulary when talking about addicts.

In fact, according to its members who include Sir Nick Clegg and Sir Richard Branson, whose company temporarily banned the Daily Mail from its trains, we shouldn’t use phrases such as “drug user” or “drug habit” at all.

We should adopt “less loaded terms” such as “person who uses drugs” or “problematic drug use”. They also want to avoid the use of the word “addicted” in favour of “use disorder”.

A recreational, casual, or experimental drug user should be known as a “person with nonproblematic drug use”.

They should never be described as “clean” but as “abstinent” or a “person who has stopped using drugs” and so-called “fix rooms” must be referred to as a “safe consumption facility”.

We will no longer “fight, counter or combat” drugs but instead “respond, address or manage” the problem.

Do you ever get the feeling that someone is trying to shoot the messenger? I wonder if simply changing a name will cure the problem.