"Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment of our minds by the means of our language."
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922)
As a linguistic-analytic philosopher, I have long been intensively concerned with the role of language in our thinking. The central insight of linguistic analysis is that our thinking is significantly shaped by the way we use language, and all our actions are based on our thinking. Therefore, it is essential to critically reflect on our language in order to gain clearer and deeper insights—and to align our actions accordingly.
Over 25 years ago, I focused on contemporary theories of consciousness and therefore intensively researched the altered state of consciousness associated with the cannabis high. The longer I researched this, the more obvious it became to me how deeply our thinking about cannabis has been distorted by deliberate manipulation, especially since the 1930s in the United States—and how the language we've passed down to us continues to "bewitch" our thinking and actions to this day.
Why our language about cannabis poisons the debate
The language and metaphors surrounding cannabis have profoundly shaped our perspective on the plant and continue to influence not only our approach to THC-containing cannabis, but also to industrial hemp and the cannabidiol (CBD) derived from it. Decades of state propaganda led to a persistent stigma that branded hemp as dangerous and undesirable. This negative connotation was reflected in strict regulations for industrial hemp and CBD: Industrial hemp was either not allowed to be cultivated at all or only later under extremely strict conditions, and in many countries, there are still no clear and sensible regulations regarding CBD products. (Fortunately, Switzerland already has clear regulations for hemp and CBD products, and HEIMAT guarantees compliance with these through strict quality and content controls.)
The stigma surrounding cannabis and hemp, perpetuated through language, has continued to lead to shame, misunderstanding, fear and reluctance in society for decades.
The power of metaphors
The influential linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff became known primarily for his work on metaphor theory and political language. In his influential book "Metaphors We Live By" (1980, with Mark Johnson), he argued that metaphors shape our entire worldview—and he repeatedly emphasized that right-wing think tanks in the United States, in particular, deliberately exploited this fact in political debates to structure them by introducing certain metaphors, a process he calls "framing."
For example, Lakoff analyzes the metaphor "tax relief" used by George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election campaign as a classic example of political framing. According to Lakoff, the term "relief" ("easement, alleviation of pain") evokes a specific interpretive framework: the taxpayer is an innocent, suffering person; the cause of the suffering is taxes as an injury or illness, and there is a hero, the politicians, who strive for relief by lowering taxes. Anyone who argues against this "relief" automatically becomes a villain in the frame, seeking to perpetuate the suffering.
Lakoff pointed out to the Democrats that they made a grave mistake by even including the term "tax relief" in the debate, because the metaphor behind it fundamentally contradicts their own worldview. The Democrats' view is that reasonable taxes with higher tax rates for the wealthy are not, in principle, an "injury," but rather a sound investment for solidarity, for example, in a good healthcare system, from which everyone benefits.
There was no "War on Drugs"
The term "War on Drugs" was also coined by a US president, Richard Nixon, in 1971 and used for political purposes. The media immediately seized on his martial metaphor and made it an integral part of the political and social debate in the US and internationally.
On closer inspection, however, this metaphor is fundamentally false: there has never been a "war on drugs." Many substances that we would classify as "drugs" were not and are not being combated at all, such as alcohol, medicinal drugs like ibuprofen, or even coffee. It is also not a "war"—wars take place between at least somewhat equal opponents—but rather a relentless state repression of certain people—especially cannabis users, not primarily against the substances themselves. The metaphor also implies that all "drugs" represent a deadly threat to humanity that must be defeated. This is downright ridiculous when one considers the etymology and meaning of the word even today: The term originally comes from the Dutch "droog" or Middle Low German "dröge," meaning "dry." In medieval trade, the phrase "droge vaten" ("dry barrels") referred to containers for dry goods such as spices and dried medicinal plants. In the USA there are still drug stores where you can get various medicines.
The real motivation behind Nixon's alleged "War on Drugs" was different, as his advisor John Ehrlichman revealed in a 1994 interview. Historical documents show that the "War on Drugs" was deliberately launched under Nixon to criminalize political opponents—the predominantly left-wing anti-war movement with regard to the Vietnam War and Black communities. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's advisor, admitted in a 1994 interview: "We couldn't outlaw anti-war activists or Black people, but by associating them with drugs, we could destroy their communities (...) Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we knew."
So, in this sense, there was never a "war on drugs." What we experienced, and to some extent still see, is a sometimes brutal, state-enforced repression worldwide that has led to suffering on an epic scale.
Not only metaphors shape our worldview
Due to long-standing linguistic manipulations like this, the word "drug" is no longer a neutral umbrella term; it is also not well-defined scientifically. It carries historically charged associations of dangerous toxicity, high addictive potential, and illegality. It therefore makes more sense to use the term "psychoactive substance" when we speak of substances that significantly influence our mental state, such as coffee, sugar, alcohol, cannabis, and even LSD.
It's not just questionable metaphors that perpetuate false worldviews about psychoactive substances. The press repeatedly reports that, for example, a rock star died from excessive use of "alcohol and drugs." If I tell my children from their earliest childhood that there are "elephants and animals" at the zoo, they will eventually see elephants as something special, not as animals. If I repeatedly tell them about "alcohol and drugs," they will internalize that alcohol is not a drug—a kind of linguistic misconditioning.
Or consider the notorious use of the word "pothead" even in the mainstream press for cannabis users: While the word's origin suggests a positive connotation, likely stemming from the Arabic kayf, meaning "well-being, good mood," decades of derogatory use have since associated the term with laziness, lack of productivity, a slovenly appearance, and so on. Studies show that such stigmatizing labels reinforce the perception of cannabis users as a "problem group," even with moderate use.
Conclusion:
If we want to make progress as a society, we must critically reflect on our language regarding cannabis and other psychoactive substances. Our language about cannabis is poisoned by metaphors, terms, and idioms that stoke fear and obscure objectivity. But as Lakoff emphasizes: New framings can create new realities. By choosing precise, destigmatizing terms, we open the space for rational debate.
Sources
1. Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
2. Baum, D. (2016). Legalize it all: How to win the war on drugs. Harper's Magazine.
3. Ahern, J., Stuber, J., & Galea, S. (2007). Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88(2-3), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.014
4. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
5. Peniche, M. (2017). The War on Drugs: An Analysis of the Rhetoric According to Richard Weaver's Theory of Ultimate Terms (Master's thesis, Liberty University). https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/383
6. Skliamis, S., et al. (2022). Cannabis users and stigma: A cross-national study. European Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1482-1501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820983560
7. Marincolo, S. (2015). What Hashish Did To Walter Benjamin: Mind-Altering Essays on Marijuana. Khargala Press.
8. Meier, M.H., & White, H.R. (2018). Stigmatization of cannabis users: A review of population-based studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 191, 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.07.044
9. Mortensen, K., et al. (2019). Cannabis stigma and perceptions: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors, 98, 106110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106110
10. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11. Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-137). Hanshin.
12. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice Hall.
13. Ehrlichman, J. (1994). Interview by Dan Baum. In: Baum, D. (2016). Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure.-
14. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
15. HvA Research Database. (2022). Cannabis users and stigma. https://research.hva.nl/files/28219826/1477370820983560_2_.pdf
