Warp wrote:

>   I have always wondered why English (at least American English) uses the
> same word for medicine as for recreational drugs. Sure, there may be
> *technical* reasons for using the same term for both, but it can certainly
> become confusing, so wouldn't it be more *practical* to use completely
> different names for the two things? Finnish uses two completely different
> names and they are never mixed.
> 
>   Slogans like "say no to drugs" can be quite confusing when you realize
> that most medicines are also "drugs". Are you going to say "no" to medicine
> which will cure your illness?

It appears to me that the FDA is in fact using the word "drug" in a 
different sense again; they appear to be using the word to refer to any 
*product* which is *claimed* to have a health benefit. (This would 
appear to include things which aren't even chemicals.) This, clearly, is 
legal-speak. (Legal terminology has some pretty odd classifications in 
it, in general.)

Presumably because the technical definition of "drug" is a matter of 
convention. E.g., is food a drug? It's a substance which, when ingested, 
has a profound effect on the human body. Does that classify it as a 
drug? Well, it depends on how you define drug.

(Not that I'm disagreeing with your original point; just pointing out 
that the FDA is using yet *another* meaning for the same word.)

Post a reply to this message