We have a well-honed ability for branding the undesirable attributes of “others.” This natural human tendency has evolved and persists for a reason: The definition of an outcast group helps society to delineate its “normal” boundaries. But this inclination can also breed counterproductive stigmas that are rooted in ignorance and that too often translate into staggering individual, social and economic costs. This makes the need to understand and confront these types of stigmas much more than a purely academic goal.
Sociologists like Gerhard Falk are quick to distinguish between “existential” stigmas (spurred by conditions like mental illness, over which the target has little or no control) and “achieved” stigmas (perceived as earned by the subject’s own actions, like criminal behaviors). At first blush, this tidy classification appears to provide a satisfying framework for deciding the ethical, moral and even legal standing of stigmas. But sometimes it fails—for instance, when deciding how to assign drug abusing or addicted individuals to either category. Clearly, while substance-use disorders are themselves recognized psychiatric conditions, their trajectories begin with seemingly voluntary action, often tinged with criminal—or at least deviant—overtones. In other words, the stigma associated with these disorders displays both existential and achieved qualities, a thorny state of affairs that poses unique challenges for public health stakeholders and policymakers.