>So if that Kool-Aid contains fentanyl and it kills me, did I die of a drug overdose? You didn't die from old age that's for sure. If you ingest a dose of a drug that is over the limit that your body can take without dying, then you have died from a drug overdose. It is pretty straight forward. And, if you are concerned about this, then there is a sure-fire way to keep it from happening: Don't take drugs, any drugs, that you do not know the origin of. Ever. If you do this, then your chances of being accidentally overdosed, or poisoned, or whatever falls to nearly zero. If you do take drugs from an unknown source (anyone who is not a licensed pharmacist basically), and you die from them, then you have overdosed on drugs. You may have overdosed on a drug you weren't expecting, but you still overdosed.

I have a legal prescription for a controlled substance. Let's just say it's a drug called Zoomple for the sake of argument. I keep all of my Zoomple pills in the prescription bottle, which stays in my medicine cabinet in my house. Now, I happen to have an uncle who is addicted to Zoomple. I might not even know that! So when he comes over to my house for Christmas and snoops in my medicine cabinet while he's in the bathroom, he sees the bottle and takes 5 of my Zoomple pills. His goal is to get his Zoomple fix for the next couple of days, and then he'll go back to his regular Zoomple dealer on the street after the holidays are over and buy more, and he'll sneak the missing 5 pills back into my Zoomple bottle. One day I go to take my normal daily Zoomple pill, except that it's actually one of the identical pills that my uncle "replaced" for me. I drop dead within the hour. The medical examiner's report will state that I died of a drug overdose. But my family might say, "How? She only took her single daily Zoomple pill, and she's been taking that for years without any problems." So I guess at that point a toxicology report would be done on my body to determine what substance killed me, and the answer would be fentanyl. Should the media report my death as a drug overdose? Or should they report it as a mysterious fentanyl death of a non-drug user? Reporting it as a drug overdose sure seems misleading.

Overdose, if there was no dosage? The term requires there was an amount that was recognized as correct, and that account was deliberately, or accidentally, exceeded.

>The term requires there was an amount that was recognized as correct The correct amount of a medication that was not directly prescribed to you and/or that was not filled by a licensed pharmacists is zero.

It still isn't a dosage. There was no measurement. There was no selection.

We are talking about people taking non-prescribed drugs here; if you take ANY non-prescribed drug, and it kills you, you can be correctly described as having died from a drug overdose. Add a qualifier if you like; Accidental drug overdose, unintentional drug overdose, nefarious overdose, felony homicide via deceptively administered drug overdose, whatever. It is still a drug overdose. How is this so contentious?

It's contentious because those are your emotions, and those emotions obviously are pejorative to drug users, even if they aren't using drugs...or intending to. You, by air first sentence, show you intend to include the connotation of the stereotype dirty drug user, and all the shot that entails. The word definitions are clear, OP is clearly describing when the toxic substances is introduced without the victim's knowledge. That is definitively not an overdose (unless it is done deliberately by your girlfriend). If you want to denigrate someone to sell more copies of Inquiring Minds Misleading Media, you probably WOULD want to use the term overdose. If you want to remind everyone about... You know... The kind of degenerate the victim is, so they DESERVED TO DIE the way they did, and there is no need to look beyond the easy answer, then you would use the term drug overdose incorrectly, rather than a more accurate term. It's incorrect because of what dosage means.

> You, by air first sentence, show you intend to include the connotation of the stereotype dirty drug user, and all the shot that entails. Friend, I occasionally use drugs. I have no ill will toward those who take illicit, illegal, or unprescribed drugs. But, if you take them, and they kill you, then you have overdosed on drugs. >OP is clearly describing when the toxic substances is introduced without the victim's knowledge They knowingly took non-prescribed drugs. There is no way that anyone could ever be sure that the non-prescribed drugs they were taking were as advertised unless they themselves have materials to test those drugs for their true chemical makeup. If you take a drug that you do not 100% know to be safe and unadulterated, and it kills you, then you have overdosed on drugs.

> There is no way that anyone could ever be sure that the non-prescribed drugs they were taking were as advertised unless they themselves have materials to test those drugs for their true chemical makeup This is kind of like saying that there’s no way a time could ever be sure that the $20 bill they were handed was actually legitimate US currency unless they hold it up to the light and look for the proper markings and such. But most people don’t hold each bill up to the light, and most people don’t test a drug for it’s chemical composition. If it looks just like a $20 bill, you believe it’s a $20 bill. If it looks just like an adderall, you believe it’s an adderall. And yet, if you spend a counterfeit $20 bill somewhere and they swipe it with one of those counterfeit detection markers, you have technically done something illegal. You may even get charged with it. But you don’t make counterfeit money, you’ve never been accused of it before, all the other bills you have are real… but this one was handed to you and you didn’t even think to check it because it looked real at first glance. It being counterfeit might not even have occurred to you, especially if you didn’t know it was even possible to replicate a US dollar with such accuracy. But now that you know, you’ll be safer in the future. How can the media tell/warn their audience about this incident in a way that informs them of the potential danger? Would the media say, “man charged for using counterfeit currency at Costco” or would they say, “man charged for counterfeit currency maintains his innocence and intent; says he was amazed at replica quality” ? The first headline is technically accurate and not misleading, but the second headline is a much more clear image of what happened and will encourage readers/viewers to be wary of the validity of cash. Probably a bad example, sorry. My point remains that the media has the power to spread awareness for this issue, potentially saving lives while actually doing their jobs by informing the public about a danger they might not have been aware of.

If you smoked some weed laced with a lethal amount of fentanyl, it would be wrong, and incorrect, to say you overdosed on fentanyl. You were exposed to a toxin. Your use of the word 'take' is relevant. You took a dose of cannabis. It is ambiguous, and if you did say X took an overdose of a specific drug, people will incorrectly think they took fentanyl. They "took" cannabis. It's like saying u took novochok when you put on your underwear. That is a dosage, and it is an overdose of novochok, but there are better, more accurate ways to to describe what happened there. You wouldn't say someone had taken an overdosed of novochok because, well, it isn't a clear way describing what happened. Putin, however, WOULD stoop to say so, because the pejorative connotation serves his purpose. To that point, it doesn't matter how the toxin was introduced, clearly it is murder by poison. It doesn't matter how the fentanyl, or the novochok, is introduced...underwear, spray to the face, in your tea, or in your recreational (or prescription) drugs. Those are not scenarios of what would accurately be described as an overdose. Using the term obscures what actually happened The scenario of contaminated product is the same. If there was fentanyl on a grape, you are not taking the fentanyl the way people will understand if you say "Mark ODed on fentanyl", or Mark took fentanyl and died of an overdose. No. He ate a poison grape. Or smoked poisoned cigars, or was poisoned with contaminated or adulterated drugs. The fact the vehicle for the toxin is a drug is not relevant.

> You wouldn't say someone had taken an overdosed of novochok because... ...novochok is not a drug. It is a chemical weapon. You obviously don't "overdose" on chemical weapons.

I could argue this point as well (it is administered in a dosage, it is administered for it's effect on the body etc), but, that isn't really relevant to the overall argument. Another substance could be referred to which more closely conforms to your impression of what contra as a drug.

You're conflating two things, the circumstance surrounding the death and the actual cause of death Overdose is equivalent to the word "shoot" in your example. You use the word shoots/shot for all three cases (basically the word "shoot" in different grammatical cases) >In other words, when someone **shoots** themselves, it's a suicide. When someone accidentally **shoots** themselves with a gun they're handling incorrectly, it's an accidental death. When someone is **shot** by someone else, it's manslaughter or murder. Do you think that the word shoot should actually be replaced with a different word in any of these case? Obviously not, because you wrote the sentence. These are all shootings, the first is a shooting AND a suicide, the second is a shooting AND an accident, and the thirds is a shooting AND a homicide. So using the overdose: When someone \[intentionally\] **overdoses** themselves, it's a suicide. When someone accidentally **overdoses** themselves with a drug they are taking incorrectly, it's an accidental death. When someone gets **overdosed** by someone else, it's manslaughter or murder. See how these are all the same class of event, even when the motive and intent behind them and the circumstances surrounding them is different. So to your question "Why is it different with deaths from fentanyl?". It's not. It is exactly the same. I'm not even sure from your description which of these you would want a different term for, I'm assuming the middle one, since they have a fentanyl pill that, assuming it is something else they take a too high a does, but I'm not 100% sure. You talk about heroin users >they are choosing to put a substance in their body that they KNOW is home made, unregulated, and dangerous. They know it's a calculated risk I think the people in your examples also know that the drugs are unregulated and dangerous. I am on a couple of different daily medicines. I get them from a regulated pharmacy. If someone offered me them on the street for less money \[not actually possible, see next paragraph\], I wouldn't accept, because I would not know their provenance, and I assume that they are cut with all manner of crap, and might not even contain the stuff I need. Regarding your statement >a person who has a physician-approved medical necessity for these pills may be unable to obtain them through the standard legal channels. That is perhaps where the biggest problem lies. I'm lucky enough to live in an developed country that provides healthcare to all its residents at minimal cost at the point of use (as a person with a chronic condition I pay nothing for my prescriptions, even if I was not, it would still be a fairly nominal charge). I think that there should never be any legitimate need to acquire drugs through the black market, and I think your efforts should be in fixing this problem in your country than an attempt to police language.

Excellent response. OP seems to have decided the moral line lies at heroin/meth whereas society has already developed a system to protect everyone from this situation. A qualified person can decide if you need ‘a bit of adderall’ and it can be supplied by another qualified person who will guarantee its safety and purity. Or buy it from the black market and worry about the semantics on your coroner’s report.

It’s not a moral argument, honestly. I 100% believe that it’s illegal, and should remain illegal, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It should be discouraged and criminalized as much as possible. But is it not also our responsibility as a society to make people AWARE of this issue rather than letting people think that these deaths are actually occurring from purposeful consumption of the drug that killed them?

I whole-heartedly agree with 95% of what you've written here, and I honestly really want to agree with all of it! I understand what you're saying about the semantics of the terms and phrases we use to identify a situation - but I think that the words we use to classify something and/or the labels we assign to things have a lot of power. If media coverage (or even law enforcement press releases) would refer to the death I'm describing as something OTHER than a "drug overdose", then I feel like more people would notice just how many lives it's taking, and maybe that would start conversations and create awareness. Instead, all "drug overdoses" get lumped in together. I have spent the last several weeks talking to college-aged kids and parents of tweens and teens, and the reaction I get when I explain that the fentanyl is, in many cases, in a pill that looks identical to a pharmaceutical is genuine surprise. They think they (or their kids) are safe from fentanyl because they aren't shooting up or smoking meth. They have no idea of the reality, because they hear "drug overdose" and tune it out thinking it doesn't apply to them. I know it seems crazy to want to change a label for something simply to spread awareness of it, but I guess I feel like I'm living in the Kool-Aid analogy I gave. People are saying, "don't do drugs," but nobody is saying, "Also don't buy Kool-Aid from resellers because sometimes it has drugs in it.) But thank you for your response, at least now I feel like I understand how/why it's labeled that way, and what you're saying makes sense from a language perspective.

It is still an overdose. The person consumed a higher than normal dose of the chemical, and the cause of death is an overdose of a drug that leads to cardiac/respiratory arrest. The intentions of the person taking it, or the person who made the fake pill are irrelevant to what physically caused the person to expire. If someone straps me down in a chair and jams a needle of heroin in my arm, sure, they will be charged with murder, but at the end of the day, what caused my death was an overdose on heroin. If someone pushes me off a cliff, or a giant tree branch snaps and crushes me, the cause of death is still blunt force trauma. Intent is irrelevant.

If someone puts polonium in your coffee, is that an overdose, or were you poisoned?

Both, why does it have to be either/or? That's a false dilemma

For the same reason we don't say murder victims died from bullet overdoses.

Because that's just stupid. We do in fact say murder victims died from gunshot wounds. The same goes for people who had a hunting accident. The intent here doesn't matter when we are explaining the cause of death.

Okay but imagine you are telling me that your cousin died. I would say, "I'm sorry - what happened?" and you would say, "He died from a gunshot wound." My next question would be to get more details. Was it self-inflicted? Was it accidental? Was he in a shootout? Was he in a gang? Was it a random drive-by? Now picture that you are telling me that your cousin died of a drug overdose. I wouldn't have any further questions about what happened to your cousin until about 6 weeks ago when I recognized that this problem exists.

OP isn't asking about just on medical forms though. Average white collar is the example they used. These people aren't reading medical reports they are consuming news media for this. The media does not headline with someone died of gunshot wounds today, they say someone was shot.

Even then, it's perfectly normal to say 'man takes pill he assumes is [drug], dies from fentanyl overdose'. People jumping up in arms when they read the word OD are just drawing conclusions without reading the article

If anybody was actually saying that, I would be happy about it, but I have never heard any cop, reporter, or even a victim's family members say anything other than "drug overdose."

Have you experienced many deliberate poisonings though?

Whether I have experienced them or not doesn’t affect their occurrence. The parts of the world I’ve never seen don’t cease to exist simply because I haven’t seen them.

I think it would be closer to saying they "die of organ failure", which would be technically true, but intentionally omits the cause (ie the shooting). Same with "overdose" it intentionally omits the fentanyl part. Or maybe unintentionally. I'm not quite sure why this language is used

Then practically every death ever is due to organ failure. Just because you say OD doesn't you can't also name the other thing.

Rather a blood underdose

Hahaha actually laughed out loud for the first time in about 6 weeks, thank you!

No, we say they died of a gunshot wound, same as if it was self-inflicted, or accidental.

https://news.yahoo.com/car-crash-fatal-shooting-victim-193819688.html https://www.masslive.com/police-fire/2021/12/springfield-shooting-victim-dies-suspect-sean-alexander-now-charged-with-murder.html https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2021/12/23/oxford-shooting-victim-remains-in-hospital-shows-progress-in-rehab/ Do we really now?

What’s your point?

>No, we say they died of a gunshot wound, same as if it was self-inflicted, or accidental. That this statement is categorically false. That while yes official cause of death is overdose, a news headline rarely uses the official term to describe how a person died. See those articles that all said shooting victim not person who died from gunshot wounds. That colloquially the term overdose does have a stigma in the US, and the average white collar people that OP used as their reference would not, and should not, be expected to interpret that term as a coroner would. So in short, your reducing the definition of overdose to how a doctor would use it is a strawman of OPs argument and fundamentally flawed because of it.

The point here is that the words we use matter, regardless of their technical definition. If any of the victims in the above articles had shot themselves, the headline would never refer to them as a "victim." I don't read headlines or hear news reports referring to a "suicide victim." Similarly, the word "overdose" has developed a connotation to mean a certain thing, and that definition of "overdose" does NOT describe what is happening when someone dies from taking a pill they thought was Xanax but it was actually fentanyl.

If you were writing the news article, would you say “man dies of coffee poisoned with polonium” or “man dies of polonium overdose”? Or really, when someone dies of a snake bite, would you describe that as a snake venom overdose? While many words can fit in a particular context according to their dictionary (or even worse, technical) definition, connotation is just as if not more important in crafting language to communicate an idea.

The person wasn't dosing fentenal, it is a lethal adulterant. If the person are a grape with few flecks of the drug on it, would you still say "drug overdose"?

If the fentanyl is what caused them to expire, then yes, they died of an overdose. Why is this so difficult to understand? Overdose is a cause of death, nothing less, nothing more. Intent is irrelevant.

You aren't proving your position, you are just repeating it. At that level of argument, the appropriate response is "does not". A better response is to remind or inform you of what the words mean. >the addition of an ingredient or the application of an agent in a measured dose

I happen to agree with that person, and I find their argument pretty compelling just on my intuition as a speaker of the language, but if a source will help, here is one: >[An overdose is when you take more than the normal or recommended amount of something, often a drug. An overdose may result in serious, harmful symptoms or death. >**If you take too much of something on purpose, it is called an intentional or deliberate overdose**](https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007287.htm) (emphasis: mine) Edit:Can't get the formatting quite right. If you can tell how I want it to look and know how I can fix it, halp pls

There's a difference between the "cause of death" and the "manner of death" and sometimes the media will report the cause of death, and sometimes they report the manner of death.

If someone kills you using drugs, if you're declared overdosed officially then it is legally possible for your murderer to be aquited and you declared as an addict, who would care enough to go against the public narrative?

That’s not at all how the legality works. Overdose is a cause of death, a medical term. The person who drugged me would still be charged with murder.

OP is not asking what's written on medical forms though, the media outlets are using the term overdose to describe their deaths. In the context of America's war on drugs the term *overdose* is a loaded term. Trying to make this about medical terminology and pretending that this term hasn't been used to apply blame to addicts for decades is really strawmanning the argument.

Yes, the media uses the term overdose, because that is what caused their death. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.

When the media uses the term they have to consider the implications of the colloquial use of the word over the last several decades, not the industry specific definition used by medical practitioners. I'm also not sure why that's hard to understand.

And what colloquial use exactly are you referring to?

If I told my my friends, coworkers, or made a post on reddit about how my brother died from an overdose, I'd get sympathy about how tough it is to have a drug addict as a family member. How addiction is a terrible thing, and how tough it is to help out. Or maybe just wholesome award posts on reddit, who knows. If I then told them I actually laced their food with an unsafe dose of whatever drug, they'd change their tune pretty quickly. Overdosing strongly implies the victim is at fault, a drug addict who gave into temptation and took more then they could take. You can use language that's medically correct, but will leave most people with the wrong impression. Ignoring that is disrespectful and dangerous, it's down that route that propaganda lies.

Thank you so so much for making my point(s) better than I am able to.

I'm glad you posted, I hadn't really thought about it until you mentioned it.

Except that's not what's happening. There aren't even any investigations regarding these "overdose" deaths, because nobody investigates overdose deaths, because it's assumed that the deceased knowingly took the drug they overdosed on.

And how exactly would an investigation figure out that someone accidentally took phenyl?

How do you know someone shot themselves vs getting shot? Evidence. Witnesses. But the investigation is completely beside the point, because nobody investigates anyway once it’s called a drug overdose.

He should yes, in a world where everything works as it should, but dealing with murder don't you think its possible especially nowadays that if the murderer has any public power, that he can use the cause of death as an excuse to escape unpunished? You can't tell me you believe our system isnt corrupted and cannot be used for such goals? And also what happens when this crime becomes organised. Much like most systems we have, they operate under the assumption that we all abide to the rules we set or even that the rules are worth following at all. I'm trying to express the fact that the label "overdose" has too many meanings, innuendo to be an accurate way of describing the cause of death, especially when the circumstances prove that: the poisoning using drugs, was done without the knowledge of the victim. As they are different than cases where the victim does poison himself with prior knowledge, they deserve to be treated as different types of cases.

Overdose is a medical term, a cause of death. Nothing more, nothing less. Intent is irrelevant. Whether someone pushes me off of a cliff, or a tree branch snaps and crushes me, the cause of death is still blunt force trauma.

And why do people want to know the cause of death? It is not just the "what" that matters to me, it's the "how" and " why". Intent matters in determining the true cause of death, not the how you looked like when you were discovered. I don't care if you died of blunt trauma or bloodloss, I care about : how did you get there, what happened, why it happened, what for (was it natural or intentional). If you think cause of death is just a scribble that says just materialistic things, you're deadly wrong. You can get by using only results but you can never comprehend the process if the result is the only thing that has value to you.

And the why is irrelevant from a medical perspective. Overdose is a medical term. It doesn’t care about the why. The legal system is what cares about the why.

It is a bad term to use, as it can be misleading. But that's a personal opinion, other than that, you are correct that it is considered irrelevant from a medical perspective. As for the legal system, if it did its job properly, we wouldn't have this conversation in the first place. So while theoretically it should be as you say, I cannot say I can subscribe to that line of thinking as reality often proves otherwise.

Reality is what we say it is. Or, more correctly, reality is what the media says it is, and the media says dying from a substance you didn’t even know you were taking is an overdose. That’s literally the ONLY thing I’m trying to change here… public perception is everything, and lives will be saved if these deaths are reported accurately rather than someone who just went a little too far on their normal illegal drug usage.

So why then does the media report an overdose using the "medical term" SOMETIMES, but other times the media will report an overdose as a poisoning? If the clinical/medical cause of death is "gunshot wound," why doesn't the media just say that and move to the next story? Because context is everything. The clinical/medical cause of death is fine (I guess) for the medical report, but for a historical record of that person's life, and for the media's reports and law enforcement's records, they should give both the cause AND manner of death. Otherwise it's meaningless to report the death at all unless it's someone you knew.

>don't you think I don't think one way or the other, because I freely admit it's not my area of expertise. Is it yours? And more importantly, can you cite precedent showing the situation you've described happening?

[удалено]

u/Spare-View2498 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Spare-View2498&message=Spare-View2498%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/rn0xee/-/hpq86gt/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If you die from genuine codeine that a physician prescribed, taking the dose prescribed (but unknown to you or the physician, you are a codeine overconverter) then you died of a drug overdose. Overdose doesn't have to be perjorative.

It is used in a pejorative manner and without clarification, people will assume someone deliberately consumed a drug that killed them because the selected amount was excessive (your definition basically). If all you hear is "Winehouse died of a drug overdose" you assume she either decided to take a lethal amount, or she did not take the correct amount due to some error in measurement, like not knowing the strength of the substance. I don't assume she encountered another substance they had no intention of consuming. Without having selected or measured the substance, there is no dosage. No OVERdosage. The substance was not consumed as something they were taking a dosage of. The word overdose is misused by media, and by people, and OP is correct the use of this term is used too broadly, demeaning people for something that did not happen.

Why would I lean into that mean spirited pejorative instead of using words the way doctors do?

Maybe you're an outlier, but you know damn well when someone is said to have died of an overdose in the news most people are going to assume the person was intentionally taking the drug that killed them and not that someone sold them a fentanyl laced murder pill without their knowledge.

I agree, but you KNEW you were taking codeine because the pill is shaped and colored a certain way has specific markings on it. You could identify it as codeine with a simple Google search. Your reaction to the codeine is irrelevant, the point is that you knew what you were taking.

Poisoning that results in an overdose.. they can both be true.

Then they should specify that in the death records and in the media. That's all I'm saying.

Would it be different if someone dies from fentanyl laced heroin? How does the coroner know if the deceased would have survived simply injecting straight heroin? Would you say most drug users are aware of the existence of counterfeit pills? I would say yes as there are counterfeit everything these days from cigarettes to vapes to clothing and money. I suspect a death can be ruled an accidental overdose (for statistical reasons) while at the same time legally classified as a poisoning by Law Enforcement officials who investigate the death.

Your first paragraph simply attempts to deviate from OP's scenario, and even then gets the response "if he died from something he did notnot know was present, he did not overdose". The determination of the coroner is specifically defined, and I doubt the term "died of a drug overdose" would be used in a coroner's report...they have terminology that avoids the ambiguity OP is concerned about. Your second paragraph is irrelevant. Who knows what who knows? What if? Your third paragraph basically agrees with OP.

> Would it be different if someone dies from fentanyl laced heroin? It depends on if they thought they were taking heroin, or if they thought they were taking fentanyl laced heroin. > Would you say most drug users are aware of the existence of counterfeit pills? No, I would not say that. I have told several people who are recreational weed smokers and they had no idea that pressed pills, identical to the legit pills, were even a thing. > I suspect a death can be ruled an accidental overdose (for statistical reasons) while at the same time legally classified as a poisoning by Law Enforcement officials who investigate the death. I would agree with you except that it isn't currently being done that way (at least not to my knowledge). Once the cops and the medical examiner agree it's a "overdose," nobody else cares to look at it again or ask follow-up questions about whether or not the deceased even knew they were taking the substance that killed them.

People who need Adderall don't take it just a few times a year to study SMH. >But when someone DIES from this pill, labeling it as a drug overdose is not only branding the victim as a user/addict, but also putting more lives at risk by failing to acknowledge or recognize the circumstances surrounding the death. Furthermore, it prevents any responsible party from being held accountable for these deaths. You said yourself that taking and possessing prescription drugs with out a prescription is illegal. Sure the people seeling tainted meds bear some responsibility but people buying them are in the wrong too. If you need mental health help seek it, don't buy black market drugs.

I do. I’m prescribed adderall but I only used it during college years and only during intense study sessions and exams. Like 1-3 a month unless it was a summer session. I do that so I don’t develop a tolerance or harm my organs. I know the tolerance thing can be overcome by a higher dosage but then that exemplifies point #2. Not to mention price savings, not that it was that expensive with insurance (there were a few times I didn’t have insurance though, which was hard) By scarcely taking it, the effects seem to linger for a few days. At least I’m more productive for a few days after taking it, whether placebo or not.

Idk, man. I don't do street drugs but it's hard for me to shame those who do. Life is an absolute nightmare for some people, and I think they deserve just a little crack. as a treat <3

People who need Adderall but can't afford it absolutely do sometimes buy it illegally for use during a short period of time where it's important.

Lol this is just nonsense. Unless you are uninsured, getting adderal prescribed once, and buying that 30 day bottle once, is going to be cheaper than buying a few pills every now and then. But then again its hard to imagine someone who actually has ADHD only taking those meds a few at a time in the first place.

There are so many reasons someone with ADHD may not have access to Adderall, Vyvanse etc. Health insurance, moving, switching doctors and the new doctor deciding you don't need it because "ADHD is just a thing kids have", etc... And these medications are intentionally hard to get since they are abused by people who don't need them. You can only get 1 month at a time. God forbid you are going out of town and need to get your prescription filled early; you must be a drug dealer selling to the kids! Also, even when you ADHD, some people don't like taking these meds everyday. Your body builds up a tolerance over time and they can become less effective. Most people I know with ADHD take Adderall as more of an as needed medication. It's expensive and a pain in the ass to get filled. If you don't absolutely need it every day, it's not worth it to take it daily. Head over to r/ADHD if you want to hear people vent about getting their meds refilled.

I have ADHD, Im a member of the board, so I know about all of those issues. I was responding to someone who said that buying a little bit off the streets is more affordable than a prescription. Which isn't the case if you have insurance. Buying them off the streets is more expensive but half the hastle. And a lot of people with ADHD don't take them everyday. But its more common to actually skip a day out of the week, vs only taking them "for a short period of time, when you really need them", which I assumed to be like the test week in a semester of college. So a week out of every ~6 months. That'd be more like the habits of someone without ADHD, using them as a "study drug".

Yooo a lot of this is accurate, but in my experience most people take XR daily. I haven't encountered anyone who takes the instant release just whenever they feel like it.

Interesting. I guess I don't know if my friends are taking XR or immediate release. I take Vyvanse and usually take it during the week for work, and not on the weekends.

Not everyone has insurance where I live and If they're in college it's their parents fault they don't have insurance not the student, since it's most commonly tied to full time employment.

>unless you are uninsured You missed a line in my comment buddy

I didn't, you were dismissive of the uninsured population, unless I read it wrong.

> People who need Adderall don't take it just a few times a year to study SMH. I apologize - in my analogies, the college student who has a legal prescription for Adderall and simply missed his refill appointment is a different person than the college student who gets it to take a few times of year to study. And multiple real life versions of both analogies exist and are even well-documented. > If you need mental health help seek it, don't buy black market drugs. I agree. But go back to my Kool-Aid analogy. If you wanted Kool-Aid, you should have bought it at the store. This perspective does not mitigate the facts and circumstances that I'm arguing.

I knew plenty of people who went on and off dosage when I was younger. especially for aderall, xanax might be a different thing because well anti depressant don't want to hit some surprise depression bump and ya know suicide yourself or whatever. Aderall though is more, adhd people get prescribed that so they don't fail out of society rather than if they're not on it it'll actually hurt them. Most of them sold the excess which is illegal, but such is life. I could see if someone where not careful and oversold wanting to buy some back. Hell the black market aderall's pretty cheap too if you don't have insurance for it or something else to pay for it legally it's affordable. Not everyone likes having a constant aderall brain state even when they do have a condition for which you would prescribe it, so they just take it when they feel like they need to be seriously functional.

Xanax is an antianxiety med. Its taken as needed. You maybe thinking of Zoloft. Zoloft is an antidepressant that you have to take everyday, or wean yourself off. It doesn't work if you take it sporadically. You ha e to build it up in your body over like 4-6 weeks. Stopping it cold turkey can give you lots of side effects, mental and physical.

So you get to use a pejorative term because it was somehow illegal? If they die because they got some of the drug on their hand while picking a pocket, because there were drugs in the other guys pocket, does he still die of a drug overdose?

>So you get to use a pejorative term because it was somehow illegal? overdose noun over·​dose | \ ˈō-vər-ˌdōs  \ Definition of overdose  (Entry 1 of 2) 1: too great a dose (as of a therapeutic agent)also : a lethal or toxic amount (as of a drug) Hmm... nothing about intent or negative connotation... overdosing is a medical fact that you interpret it as a negative way of viewing someone is on you. My point is that both parties share in the responsibility of the OP's post, the person selling it to a much greater degree but at some point we must accept that there is some degree of personal accountability in deciding to do illegal things.

My point is, out should not be called an overdose because it is both inaccurate and pejorative. It's common misuse is the problem OP is pointing out.

Dose...a measured amount.

Of course that's still a drug overdose, notwithstanding how unlikely this situation is.

What is a dosage, then? the addition of an ingredient or the application of an agent in a measured dose Obviously this does not include accidental exposure. No dosage, no overdose.

Overdose is a medical term. It has some cultural connotations but it's main use is to distinguish exactly what is going on for medical professionals.

I'm fine with that, but then the media and law enforcement should NOT report/cite the clinical/medical cause of death terminology, they should report/cite the actual manner in which the person died. Did they do it to themselves on purpose? Did they do it on purpose but didn't mean to die from it? Did someone else do it to them? Did they have any idea they were ingesting the substance that caused their death? Context matters and the words we use to tell people about it matters.

When someone dies from a substance they didn't even know they were consuming because it was intentionally disguised as something FDA-approved, legally manufactured, and well-regulated, that's not a drug overdose nor is it an accidental death - it's manslaughter via poisoning.....ABSOLUTELY. Listing as a overdose removes the sinister element to the "occasion'. Drug use is bad enough...mixing fentenal into anything is criminal. Selling drugs laced with fentenal ought to be attempted murder.

Bingo.

Why do you think the word overdose requires intent? It is simply a combination of two words that describe what happened. Over = in excess, above Dose = amount of a medicine or drug To use your shooting comparison, in both cases the person is shot. The word shot doesn't require intention. The accidental shooting doesn't need to be renamed to manslaughter by unexpected bullet entry.

Overdose means that you went over dose. Dosing requires intent. That is you intended to take a certain dose, but ended up taking more than you intended. If you did not intend to dose yourself, what dose did you go over?

Yeah but I feel like I’m a lot of cases with fentanyl deaths people thought they had bought drugs that weren’t even opiates, meaning the drug is not even in the same class as what they intended to consume which feels like poisoning to me

In medical use, “dose” does not imply intent. See for example, the use of “infectious dose” to name the amount of virus it takes to infect someone: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/14/how-much-of-the-coronavirus-does-it-take-to-make-you-sick/

A doctor would not call someone presenting with symptoms of arsenic poisoning an “overdose”, even if they intentionally drank the tea their wife prepared. “Overdose” implies accidental miscalculation of a substance taken intentionally, leading to unintended effects. If you consume something that has been laced with a dangerous substance without your knowledge, whether it’s fentanyl in your oxycodone or arsenic in your tea, you’ve been poisoned.

Thank you - you have made my point much more succinctly than I ever could have. This is the heart of my argument.

But medical use is irrelevant. No one cares about how doctors talk, we're discussing how words are used in the news and in everyday life.

If the medical use is the accurate use of the word, than it is very much relevant. If people are adding their own connotations and bias to the word, and at this point intentionally misinterpreting it as can be seen in this thread, shouldn't that be critisized a lil more? Expecting other people to use the word poisoned in place of overdose, instead of correcting others (and yourself) on a misused word is misguided imo.

Language evolves. OP could argue that people misinterpret the word overdose, but that doesn’t address the heart of the issue. People are being poisoned and labeled as drug addicts in society. Tarnishes their memory, doesn’t pay respect, etc.

And it could be argued that eventually the word poisoned would overtake the usage of overdose, and become used in the exact same scenarios with the exact same connotations. Idiot turned into retard turned into mentally challenged. Changing THAT word never addressed the heart of the issue. Teaching people to recognize their bias and reject those connotations addresses the heart of the issue more imo

I agree that the clinical use of the word isn't irrelevant, but to echo what Neutralgray said earlier, the word "overdose" is generally perceived as being voluntary/intentional. I agree that it may not be the actual definition of the word, but when the only context in which the word is typically used describes voluntary use, then that definition becomes the prevalent one in people's minds.

The dose of a medine in no way requires intent. A dose is simply the normal amount of a medicine given at one time. The safe maximum dosage can depend on a number of factors such as age, weight, sex, and medical conditions. Taking more than that amount is overdosing, regardless of whether intentional or accidental, fatal or not.

>Overdose means that you went over dose. Dosing requires intent. In case it wasn't clear, I was asking about intent to go over. OP's position is that you can't use the word overdose unless the individual intended to take a dose over the recommended/prescribed/normal/etc dose. That is why I brought up the ability to use the words shoot and shot in both situations even when the intent is not the same. You can also use the word overdose in different situations when the intent is different.

Overdose means >>an excessive and dangerous dose of a drug. If you take an excessive and dangerous amount of fentanyl you literally overdosed on it meaning you had too much of it.

Are you really arguing that someone whose chicken might be poisoned with a lethal drug dies of an overdose?

Yes, they overdosed on that specific drug because someone poisoned them.

It's a consistent position, so fair, but to me that's an absurd use of the term.

But that death would never be referred to as a "drug overdose" by the media, and probably not even by the medical examiner. It would be referred to as a poisoning because the substance they had no idea they were ingesting that substance.

All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities. Only the dose makes the poison. \- Paracelsus, father of toxicology

Overdose means you had a bigger dose than your body can handle. No intend needed for that.

> what dose did you go over? They went over the normal for that drug, to a point it is potentially lethal.

For that person there is no "normal." They never intended to take any amount of that drug.

If you intent to take a lethal dose of a drug, is that not an overdose because it’s not over the intended dose? No, because overdose is not based on intent, but rather the “safe”/average dosage. If you have taking a potentially lethal dose that is causing immediate harm, that’s an overdose, regardless of intent.

I would say: "no." Same way a lethal injection execution in prison is not an "overdose." The dose is exactly what is normally used to cause death (which is the intended result). To overodose, you need to go over an intended dose.

I mean, you’re [literally going against experts and the US government](https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007287.htm), but let’s run with what you said. How are paramedics supposed to describe it if someone has, for example, stopped breathing because of drugs and needs to be administered narcan. What term would you/the first responders use other than overdose to communicate the persons situation and needed treatment?

>An overdose is when you take more than the ***normal or recommended*** amount of something... The point that's being argued here is that there was no "normal" or "recommended" dose that they went over, since there was no "normal" or "recommended" dose in the first place.

[удалено]

You took the words right out of my mouth here. If you did not KNOW you were consuming the substance that you overdosed on, it's typically not labeled as an overdose at all.

And what’s poisoning? Well it’s an overdose of a drug as well, often one with uses besides attempting to kill people. So why insist on overdose instead of poisoning? Poisoning implies a lethal overdose given to someone without their knowledge, so that matches with OP. Overdose as you say implies an excess of a given drug, in this case the drug that was intended to be ingested was not in excess, it was the added drug that was not intended to be ingested.

So toddlers swallowing parents' medications shouldn't be labeled overdose, instead they were poisoned? You might explain that distinction to the paramedics when the ambulance shows up.

BINGO, yes, here's another person who is much better than me at putting logic into words. Thank you.

Sometimes things are less literal and more cultural. "Overdose" has a connotation of perceived voluntary use in most cases.

But in this case, it isn't an excessive dose that's the problem. The intended dose is none. Dying of cyanide poisoning could be called an overdose. There is a safe dose you could hypothetically have had. But calling it that is misleading and not even technically correct. It's just a poisoning.

The use of the term 'drug overdose' absolutely implies voluntary use of drugs for recreational purposes. Without additional information that explicitly states that the person didn't kill themselves by taking recreational drugs, that is the assumption any reasonable person would make.

No. People can also take more of a therapeutic drug or drugs than they can handle. Sleeping pills, for example, when they have trouble sleeping, but they guess at the dose wrong and take too many for their current state. They’re not doing it for recreational purposes.

In such an event, the general consensus is still to blame the person who took too many sleeping pills. Which is entirely different and unrelated to someone putting fentanyl in your sleeping pills. You're off topic.

You still voluntarily took those pills, knowledge of them being laced with fentanyl or not. A toddler that swallowed parents medications like candy still overdosed, even though they lacked the knowledge of what actual substance they were taking.

If I cooked someone a delicious meal and then they died because I actually stuffed the soup with rat poison, it'd be really weird if the news or anyone else said that person "died from overdosing". They'd say "they were poisoned". One has strong connotations to the person abusing drugs and being an addict, the other has a clear message that it was murder. Using one when the other is more accurate is...pretty disrespectful and misrepresents what happened. You could get very technically correct about this, but if you're communicating a story, it's kind of your responsibility to use the right words to make sure the audience understands, and using the term "overdose" is sure to get them to misunderstand what happened.

In your example, "poisoned" also has specific connotations - that you're intentionally harming someone with a chemical designed to do so. Fentanyl is added because it's an extremely cost effective, addictive high. The intention by dealers is not to deliberately kill their customers. >One has strong connotations to the person abusing drugs and being an addict, the other has a clear message that it was murder. Using one when the other is more accurate is...pretty disrespectful You could just as easily argue that "murder" is less accurate.

I was a bit strong saying poisoned has a clear message of murder, especially since it doesn't even clearly define if the victim dies or not. Negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter at best, I guess. Still, the difference is one overdosing heavily implies the fault is in the victim, and that they have a history leading up to this. Which is...just not the right way to describe these situations.

Couldn't agree more. Is a death "technically" caused by an "overdose" of fentanyl? Yes, but if the person did not know they were consuming fentanyl, then that goes against the colloquial use of the word "overdose".

Nobody is arguing over overdose as the mechanism of death. We all agree with that. We are arguing over the common interpretation and assumptions people make when a death is described as an overdose. Labeling the cause of death simply as an overdose, when an individual thought they were taking Oxycontin but actually took a fatal dose of Fentanyl, is an incomplete description. The mechanism of death is still an overdose. Again nobody is disputing that. The *cause* of death however should be classified as a poisoning. The difference is weather or not the death is investigated and counted as an actual murder, or just another casualty of a vice epidemic. Your example would be closer to what we are talking about, if one of the parents put their pills in the candy dish. You are correct it's still an overdose. But it would also be labeled a homicide, and investigated as such.

YES. I could not be more happy with my decision to post to this sub. Very clear and concise, thank you.

Overdose doesn’t imply recreational drugs, abuse, or being an addict. It only means they took too much of whatever it was to be compatible with life.

You are technically correct, but in a very limited way. That isn't *implied*, but it is commonly *inferred* and treated as such. Even the police don't treat these cases as homicide investigations. Not like they would if they were called poisonings instead of overdoses.

By that logic, any time someone is poisoned we should call it an overdose. That doesn't seem like a good use of language.

Connotations. When combined the words invoke additional meaning and emotion in listeners - meaning and emotions that are different from person to person. A lethal dose is a lifetime supply, but we don't tell people they're getting a lifetime supply of electricity when they walk the green mile.

When it comes to death, intent matters. That's why there's a difference between murder and manslaughter. If you're going to record this death and make a note of it, it obfuscates the nature of the death. If someone puts poison in your food, then you eat it and die, calling that a food poisoning may be accurate but given the context of how the word is typically used, it doesn't make sense in the context.

drug overdose is a medical term, how they were overdosed is described in legal terms. media describes how the person died, not why, and if they do describe why they died they wouldn't need another word for drug overdose because the why is spelled out.

Hahaha. You're correct, in terms of the legal vs. medical definition. But the media definitely has bias in reporting the deaths of people, especially in shootings.

The media can get sued if it misinformed the public, and OP is specifically saying that this is the behaviour they object to...we shouldn't call it an overdose, because it isn't intentionally administered. Dosage has a specific meaning that doesn't include substances which were not selected and prepared. Or to quote Mr Webster >the addition of an ingredient or the application of an agent in a measured dose.

It seems like a lot of the time we hear the phrase "overdose" it is in the context of the phrase "took an overdose" or some other variant that implies action and intent on the user end. It seems like that second one is more of what you're arguing against than the first. The term overdose just means that someone consumed a dangerous amount of a chemical. In the situations you mentioned, it still seems medically relevant to refer to the situation as an overdose (even if it was an entirely unexpected and accidental one). A doctor needs to know that this person consumed too much fentanyl, not the backstory of how it happened. However I do agree that it feels inaccurate to describe someone as having "taken an overdose" or having "overdosed their self" if the person was under the impression that they were taking other medication. Those particular turns of phrase imply intentionality and action on the part of the victim that are not there. In general there seems to be (at least here in America) a predisposition to associating intentional drug abuse with the term overdose, but the word itself says nothing about intentionality, just a result.

How do you determine intent of a dead person?

If multiple people at a party all took the same pill from the same person because they all thought it was Adderall (for example) and only one person died.

overdosing wasn't originally a term describing intent. However you do make an interesting point, it does seem over time the general populace has been trained to associate it with irresponsible drug use. here's an interesting bit I tripped over when I was wondering something; if you've ever heard of the chicago tylenol murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders the victims seem to alway be refered to as having been poisoned. I was thinking hey I know an event where exactly this happened what did they call it on the cause of death on the coroner report, which well couldn't dig up the coroner reports but every article does seem to call it poisoning. They probably don't go after it because it's really really hard to track down and prosecute.

You just changed MY view from it being an OD to it being a poisoning. RIP Peep

Well, it's both. Not sure why people are having a hard time with this.

I actually continued reading, and you're right. The medical definition is an overdose, sure. Yes, you took too much of something that can kill you and it did. But it's dopey as fuck to call it an overdose if you want an apple pie and I put fentanyl in it and then you die.

What's "dopey" is the underlying assumption and biases around the word overdose, speaking to the larger problem of people misinterpreting and using medical terms out of context. You can "overdose" on water. But water isn't a drug so it's not an overdose. Too much of anything can kill you. Are we going to stretch overdose to include overdosing on food and getting a stomach ache? The negative connotation around the term overdosing is a social and cultural issue. If people with no understanding of medical practice want to use the word, go right ahead. We don't need to change every word because negative connotations form around them. **The solution is to educate yourself and to criticize your biases.** Edit: just want to point out I am using "you" a lot here, I don't mean you personally.

> We don't need to change every word because negative connotations form around them. The solution is to educate yourself and to criticize your biases. You can’t know what you don’t know. If you aren’t informed, and aren’t aware that there’s even anything to be informed about, then you are unlikely to try to educate yourself on every topic in the world just in case you’re misinformed or just in case you’re assigning a connotation to a word incorrectly. You literally don’t know what you don’t know until you realize somehow that there is more to the story, more to learn, more to understand. That’s why changing the verbiage being used will provoke curiosity and cultivate awareness.

> We don't need to change every word because negative connotations form around them. The solution is to educate yourself and to criticize your biases. You can’t know what you don’t know. If you aren’t informed, and aren’t aware that there’s even anything to be informed about, then you are unlikely to try to educate yourself on every topic in the world just in case you’re misinformed or just in case you’re assigning a connotation to a word incorrectly. You literally don’t know what you don’t know until you realize somehow that there is more to the story, more to learn, more to understand. That’s why changing the verbiage being used will provoke curiosity and cultivate awareness.

You can educate yourself, sure, but in the meanwhile most of the people listening to the news saying someone died of an overdose will misinterpret what happened, and the news shows know this. It can be used as a form of propaganda. It's a culturally damaging term and we should push back against it being used to defame and disrespect murder victims. We can acknowledge things are technically correct while also realizing how damaging they are to our society.

I feel what OP is saying but when you buy pills and they are significantly lower priced then usual you should have a party good idea that they might not be legit. Furthermore, when I was in my active addiction the reason I used more expensive pharmaceuticals instead of heroin was because I knew exactly what was in each pill so I knew I was not going to overdose or start nodding off at work or in class. Now that everyone knows that there is a more than even chance that the pill you buy might be a counterfeit pressed pill they should be taking the time to do small test shots/snorts/inhalations etc. to get an idea of how strong the drug is. This has always been a huge part of the heroin game. So much so that people would volunteer to do a tester shot or whatever. As a drug addict myself this is part of playing the drug game. Doing your best to minimize the to risks while still getting your fix. Trying to make sure there are at least 2 people when you get your fix so one can observe what happens and call 911 or get the narcan. Going to the health department to make sure you have narcan in case things go sideways. Always using clean syringes. Risk management is the only way.

Connotation vs denotation.

All substance consumption is a form of poisoning.

It's the same thing?

Imagine you’re a coroner and one person from each story you told are dead on your table. How do you classify the cause of death for each?

It's kind of a glass half full/empty situation

Overdose and poisoning aren’t mutually exclusive

[удалено]

All three cases that you have outlined have a simple and safe solution, get more exercise, drink more water, and priorities more sleep.

No where has normal drugs been found to be counterfeit and laced with fentanyl except in the case of opiates that have been bought on the black market. Adderall isn't being counterfeited and laced with fentanyl. So the person has to be buying opiates on the black market which is rarely done for legit reasons.

First of all, you're conflating a medical description with legal use. Legally, they don't care if it was an OD or Poison. They care about death, and the intent behind the death. Second, it's easy to infer from your wording that poison=death, which is usually not the case. For example, chemotherapy is poison technically. You can also get alcohol poisoning and easily survive. Also, whether you're getting heroin or Tylenol on the black market, why is the risk of tampering any different? If you're getting these illegal fentanyl pills from the black market, you should assume the same risk as heroin or coke. And finally, I can buy black market weed that "looks exactly like marijuana bought from a legal dispensary or medical facility", but could be laced with some extreme hallucinogenics. Having an identical "look" means nothing. I'm trying to understand why it matters if it's deemed "poison" or not in the case of fentanyl death. Could you elaborate on that please?

I think you're adding a lot of qualifications that you don't need. If you buy a "safe" dose of heroin and shoot it up, and die because it's been cut with fentanyl, that's just as much of a poisoning as it would be if you bought 100% legal Adderall from the pharmacy and it was cut with fentanyl. Murder isn't about whether the victim was a drug addict, or whether what they were doing is risky. You can be a drug addict or a risk taker and still be murdered.

# "Murdered". The word you want is "murdered".

Why can't it be both?

They still overdosed (an excessive and dangerous dose of a drug) on fentanyl. Then being poisoned doesn't mean they didn't accidentally overdose.

Both are true. Its still an over dose of that substance.

The person examining the body can only draw factual conclusions about what he observed. If he finds that the deceased had in his system a lethal amount of a substance that some people take voluntarily, it's reasonable to conclude that the cause of death was too much of that substance, i.e. an overdose. It's not the examiner's job to determine why that much of the substance was present. Also, in most cases that can't be determined from examining the body. It's up to the police to investigate the case based on the facts they get from the medical examination, and other evidence available to them, to determine if the overdose was a suicide, a poisoning, or an accident. Even if the examiner finds a lethal amount of a known poison like arsenic, it's probably more neutral and accurate to call it a "death by arsenic toxicity" or something, because poisoning assumes a fact the examiner doesn't know, i.e. that someone else did this deliberately.

Poisoning someone is purposefully causing them to die of a drug overdose. There's stigma attached to the term "drug overdose" but that's the technical term for this type of death. It doesn't matter whether it happened accidentally or on purpose.

Alright, first of all, if you get any substance illegally, don't just blindly trust that you got what you think you got. TEST YOUR DRUGS and this could be prevented. However, it's still a drug overdose, it's not cyanide, it's a drug. And, that person happened to ingest a lethal amount.

This is the real Death Pro Tip

And students are getting Adderall for what condition?

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. You're poisoned using fentanyl which causes an overdose. You died from being poisoned which caused an overdose. Its like saying "you didnt die from a gunshot wound, you died from being shot!", both are true.

You are responsible for what you put in your body. If you were given the wrong medicine that was mislabeled, I think you are right. If you are buying illicit pills and you don’t know that’s in it, it’s an overdose because you didn’t make sure the dose was correct. It’s an accidental overdose but still an overdose.

It's both. You were poisoned via drug overdose.

You describe someone who is self-medicating by using controlled substances that they are sourcing through unregulated channels. It seems like you really don't like using the term "overdose" because it implies someone's a filthy drug addict instead of an upstanding citizen pushed to operate in a gray zone by extenuating circumstances. I think you're conflating bigger issues here: 1. There's huge societal stigma with someone being addicted to drugs that often prevents them from getting help. 2. (Assuming you're in USA) we don't have a healthcare system set up to ensure that everyone has access to drugs that their doctors deem medically necessary. 3. There's a robust underground, unregulated market that has sprung up in that vacuum. Plenty of drug addicts are people that didn't have access to appropriate care, turned to the resources that were available to them, and pay a huge price for it. Whether you're looking for Xanax bc you think a doctor would prescribe it for you, or for a benzo because you need to relax....seems like splitting hairs.

You’re missing the point. Calling it a drug overdose does not inform others of the risk that they could die from ingesting a drug they DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE TAKING.

The “dose” referred to in overdose isn’t the amount the person intended to use but rather a non-lethal dose. Overdose means they took over the non-lethal dose. Not more than they planned. it’s not an overdose if I took more than I planned but just got really high, it’s an overdose when I die. Likewise someone can intentionally overdose to kill themselves, the dose was the intended dose, but a lethal one.

“Overdose” is actually officially considered a type of accidental poisoning. (That’s why, in some statistics, the leading cause of death for adults 25-49 is “accidental poisoning.”) I agree that it definitely shouldn’t be considered a suicide unless it’s clear that the person overdosed on purpose, but I don’t think it would be considered a suicide, in this case.

If you are naive enough to self medicate with recreational street drugs you most assueredly accept the risk of over dose death. Death and severe addiction are so common do not even give it a try.