The UK government’s decision to ban xylazine, while aimed at addressing public health concerns, has been accompanied by deeply troubling rhetoric, labelling the substance as a “zombie drug.” This kind of stigmatising language is a significant departure from responsible policymaking and is more typical of sensationalist media coverage than official government communications. For a government—especially one under Labour, a party historically aligned with supporting vulnerable communities—to adopt such harmful terminology is shocking and unacceptable.
Why Stigmatising Language is Harmful
Sensationalist terms like “zombie drug” are reductive and damaging, framing drug users as dangerous, inhuman, or monstrous. Historically, the media has used this type of language to sell fear, but for it to be adopted by the government is alarming. It strips away the complexity of addiction, ignoring the fact that many individuals using substances like xylazine are already some of the most marginalised in society. This kind of language fuels stigma, which already acts as a significant barrier for people seeking treatment.
People struggling with addiction often face profound shame and social exclusion, and the use of dehumanising language exacerbates these feelings. Instead of promoting understanding and access to health services, the government is further alienating a population that needs compassion and support. Addiction is a multifaceted issue involving mental health, trauma, and socio-economic factors. Simplifying it with terms like “zombie drug” is not only inaccurate but also counterproductive to addressing the root causes of substance misuse.
The Role of Government in Responsible Public Health Communication
The government’s primary role in drug policy should be to promote understanding and foster public health through evidence-based interventions. The decision to ban xylazine—a veterinary tranquiliser often mixed with opioids—may be motivated by its harmful effects, but banning alone is not a solution. When discussing these substances, the government’s messaging should aim to educate the public, raise awareness, and encourage those affected to seek help.
Instead of focusing on the realities of addiction and the dangers posed by xylazine, the use of sensationalist language directs attention away from harm-reduction strategies. The lack of emphasis on rehabilitation or harm reduction only entrenches the belief that addiction is a criminal issue rather than a public health one.
The Consequences of Fear-Based Narratives
Using such stigmatising rhetoric risks reigniting failed “war on drugs” approaches that do little more than criminalise users and increase stigma. We need only look to progressive models in other countries, such as Portugal, where decriminalisation and harm reduction have successfully shifted the focus from punishment to support and treatment. Such policies improve public health outcomes and reduce overdose deaths while treating drug users with dignity and respect.
The language we use when discussing drug policy is crucial, as it shapes public perceptions and ultimately the success of those policies. Fear-based narratives might make for eye-catching headlines, but they do nothing to foster a compassionate approach to addiction, which is exactly what is needed if we are to reduce harm and provide effective support for those affected by substances like xylazine.
What the UK Government Should Do
Banning xylazine may be one part of the solution to curbing its harmful effects, but the language around it must be reframed. Addiction should be treated as a health issue, and any official communication must reflect the dignity of those who suffer from it. The government must focus on promoting harm reduction strategies, expanding access to mental health services, and supporting individuals with addiction rather than alienating them further with stigmatising terminology.
There is an urgent need for the UK to shift its drug policies toward evidence-based, compassionate approaches. As other countries have shown, progressive policies like decriminalisation and harm reduction not only reduce stigma but also lead to better health outcomes. The UK government must adopt a similar stance, moving away from punitive rhetoric and towards a humane, health-centred approach.
Conclusion
The UK government’s use of stigmatising language in its communication about xylazine is not only shocking but also counterproductive to its stated goals of protecting public health. For a Labour government to adopt such sensationalist rhetoric is deeply disappointing and runs counter to the values of empathy and care that should be central to its drug policy. The focus should be on fostering understanding, reducing harm, and supporting recovery—not perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
To move forward, the government must stop using language that demonises drug users and begin promoting policies that treat addiction with the care and compassion it deserves. Only then can we hope to build a healthier and more inclusive society for everyone.