In my work as a senior editor at a scientific journal, the most challenging arguments I mediate among reviewers, authors, other editors, and readers are not about research methods, empirical data, or subtle points of theory but about which terms describing vulnerable groups are acceptable and which are harmful. My field—addiction and drug policy—has a tradition of savage infighting over language. Are the people whom earlier generations derided as vagrants or bums more appropriately termed homeless people, people who are homeless, unsheltered persons, persons with lived experience of being unhoused, or something else? Similar arguments erupt in politics, in journalism, in the classroom, in the workplace, and between generations at the dinner table. When even sincere, well-intended people cannot agree on which words reinforce social injustice and damage human well-being, the debates can be mutually bruising. Sometimes the arguments resolve themselves over time, and plainly pejorative words such as crackhead and junkie vanish unlamented from the public discourse. To their credit, scholars who study and treat addiction are keenly aware of how negative language can …