The word "junkies"

There's an 'hilarious' photograph circulating at the moment in a WhatsApp group I'm a member of, where people are laughing at a picture of a glass of methadone, left down and (it seems) forgotten, in a business premises.

Why is that hilarious? You'd have to ask the people circulating the image. It doesn't sound remotely amusing to me.

I suppose part of the hilarity is that some people (the person who sent me this picture is a medical doctor) enjoy the image of an addicted person looking everywhere for a drug that allows them to get through the day. Hilarious right?

But my central question isn't about the image I was sent, I'd like to know why we use the word "junkie"?

Yes, junk is a slang term for heroin. But we all put junk in our bodies, be that fast food, or alcohol, or recreational drugs. Yet none of us are designated as human junk, that's a word we only use for poor people with addictions. Not our types.

Is it time this term was consigned to the dustbin?

Jimmy.

Un hot story brother.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There's an 'hilarious' photograph circulating at the moment in a WhatsApp group I'm a member of, where people are laughing at a picture of a glass of methadone, left down and (it seems) forgotten, in a business premises.

Why is that hilarious? You'd have to ask the people circulating the image. It doesn't sound remotely amusing to me.

I suppose part of the hilarity is that some people (the person who sent me this picture is a medical doctor) enjoy the image of an addicted person looking everywhere for a drug that allows them to get through the day. Hilarious right?

But my central question isn't about the image I was sent, I'd like to know why we use the word "junkie"?

Yes, junk is a slang term for heroin. But we all put junk in our bodies, be that fast food, or alcohol, or recreational drugs. Yet none of us are designated as human junk, that's a word we only use for poor people with addictions. Not our types.

Is it time this term was consigned to the dustbin?

I thought junk referred to all drugs in a person's possession? Might be wrong.

Gatling

Nah once a junkie always a junkie in a lot of cases ,
Zombie's seems to be the latest buzz word

retalivity

Yes, heroin and a mcdonalds are exactly the same

Edgarfrndly

I think you're asking the wrong forum mate. AH is for quick emotive responses, not deep in-depth discussion. Drug addiction is a horrible affliction, but a lot of drug addicts do irreparable damage to their relationships, which makes it easy for people to brush them off. A girl I grew up with is dating a heroin addict and has her kids around him. I just can't have respect for someone like that. They will do anything and hurt anyone to get money for their fix.

Trainspotting was the best anti-heroin advertisement any teen growing up in the 90's could ever had. People should know better and still take it. Of course having a good support framework to help them recover is important - but we're human by nature and will judge, laugh and ridicule anything and everything that's different. I don't think it will ever stop.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Nah once a junkie always a junkie in a lot of cases ,

once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic also applies to many cases.

You'd face a serious backlash from family members if you implied that such a person is human junk, though.

leggo

I'm okay with having unflattering words for certain unflattering behaviour. Shame can be a powerful motivator in people changing their ways. If we start normalising it, then we'll have addicts posting selfies of themselves injecting all over the place with the hashtag #JunkieConfidence like it's a healthy/cool way to live, and I might just turn to heroin myself if that catches on.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

I'm okay with having unflattering words for certain unflattering behaviour. Shame can be a powerful motivator in people changing their ways.

Got any evidence for this?

Genuinely curious. I know plenty of people with addictions, have never heard of any of them being cured by shame/ insults.

Capt'n Midnight

junkie is more specific than junk
junkie is more specific than addict
junkie is more specific than waster

pat ticket

AKA st. Pats fans (barstoolers look away now)

Vincent Vega

It's definitely a pretty degrading and dehumanising term.

The term addict is also pretty vague, as we're all pretty much addicted to one thing or another, whether or not it comes in the form of a substance and is detrimental to our lives.

Substance dependants would probably be the fairest and most accurate way to call such people.

leggo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Got any evidence for this?

Genuinely curious. I know plenty of people with addictions, have never heard of any of them being cured by shame/ insults.

I once got called fat by a teenager. After finishing my ice cream I immediately signed up for the gym. Then I got big and beat that little prick up.

tigerboon

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Got any evidence for this?

Genuinely curious. I know plenty of people with addictions, have never heard of any of them being cured by shame/ insults.

It might stop a few from going there in the first place.

tigerboon

tigerboon wrote: »

It might stop a few from going there in the first place.

Yeah, if there's one thing we've learned from the epidemiology of drug abuse, it's that youths who live in areas of high drug-abuse incidence, never abuse drugs.

Are you for real?

Ya junkie's b*stard ya.

Diane Selwyn

Always assumed it came from the William S Burroughs novel

s7ryf3925pivug

OP, I take it you have some personal experience with this - and good for you in speaking up, it takes courage to assert yourself in a way you know will be met with derision, even on a pseudo-anonymous forum like this.

I have a question - is it true that the brown spots like cigarette burns on public baby changing tables are caused by people cooking heroin on them?

Diane Selwyn

Diane Selwyn wrote: »

Always assumed it came from the William S Burroughs novel

That's a great novel, btw. But apparently the term predates Burroughs's novel.

This is a bit of a tangent, maybe it belongs in a Homelessness thread, but imagine if there were a dog, or an agricultural animal, living in a doorway in any city of this country? They wouldn't be long there before they were claimed.

But under our economic system, human beings are less valuable than livestock.

freshpopcorn

They are lots of words that are used that would shock some people. These words aren't going to be said on RTE but they do get used.
I recently saw a few episodes of crimewatch UK from the 1980 and they called homeless people tramps on some occasions.

Arkham City

Arkham City wrote: »

Dogs and agricultural animals are valuable, junkies are not.

True, All I'm saying is that this a choice we've made, we've consciously decided that some humans are worth less than the most worthless of cattle wandering along the side of a mountain.

If we're OK with that, fine. That's a choice we've made.

mcmoustache

I think that people should be able to take whatever drugs that they want, so long as they can do so without being a cnut to others. If they wind up stealing to feed a habit, then I think that their sentence should include forced rehab on conviction. A lot of the junkies I see in dublin are so far gone that they shouldn't be free to roam the streets - all they do is beg and steal.

Capt'n Midnight

Vincent Vega wrote: »

It's definitely a pretty degrading and dehumanising term.

The term addict is also pretty vague, as we're all pretty much addicted to one thing or another, whether or not it comes in the form of a substance and is detrimental to our lives.

Substance dependants would probably be the fairest and most accurate way to call such people.

Yes it's a degrading and dehumanising term, but you have to earn it.

To be a junkie you have to tick a lot of boxes.

It's the whole lifestyle , the complete disregard for others and the absence of any real attempt to come off. You can't be a junkie unless you are also a scumbag.

You can be an addict without being a complete scumbag or a drain on society.

Arkham City

Arkham City wrote: »

Most farmers would not see cattle as worthless.

Well, exactly.

But we tend to see "junkies" as just that - human junk. Worthless, not like cattle... nor even dogs.

What we're really saying there, is that, unlike cattle, they have been given so much individual liberty that we now consider them to be lesser than animals. They're not really one of us. They're detritus, some public nuisance.

mcmoustache

Arkham City wrote: »

If that is the case they should receive no free healthcare.

That's a little too far, I think. Maybe just fix them up and send them to mandatory rehab?


In any case, drugs are grand for the middle class who have to pay for healthcare anyway but the poorly educated class (and I'm not talking working class here for those with a chip on their shoulder) that you see on the streets do have drug problems that they can't solve on their own. Forced rehab would get them out of the way for a while at least.

mcmoustache

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What we're really saying there, is that, unlike cattle, they have been given so much individual liberty that we now consider them to be lesser than animals. They're not really one of us. They're detritus, some public nuisance.

The problem can be reduced with early intervention but that would need funding. We see plenty of junkies on the streets with prams - those babies have no chance and will end up down the same road. I'd like to think that state care was the answer but we don't have a great record on that here.

ArnieSilvia

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

But my central question isn't about the image I was sent, I'd like to know why we use the word "junkie"?

If you read the Wikipedia article about the heroin, you'd find that it originated from addicts collecting scrap metal "junk" and selling to get money for heroin. By the way, the name of the drug came from the description of people taking it in the early stages (trials) - they said that the drug made them feel "heroic"

ceadaoin.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, exactly.

But we tend to see "junkies" as just that - human junk. Worthless, not like cattle... nor even dogs.

What we're really saying there, is that, unlike cattle, they have been given so much individual liberty that we now consider them to be lesser than animals. They're not really one of us. They're detritus, some public nuisance.

I always assumed the "junk" part of it was referring to the drug, as that was a slang term for it back in the day, not a statement on the societal value of the people addicted to it.

joeguevara

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes it's a degrading and dehumanising term, but you have to earn it.

To be a junkie you have to tick a lot of boxes.

It's the whole lifestyle , the complete disregard for others and the absence of any real attempt to come off. You can't be a junkie unless you are also a scumbag.

You can be an addict without being a complete scumbag or a drain on society.

Disagree with this. Firstly, the point about non real attempt to get off it. There is nothing more than an addict would like to do. It gets to the stage that they don’t get any enjoyment from the drug but keep taking it so they won’t get sick.

Secondly, not all junkies are scumbags. My best mates brother is an addict and when he is clean he is one of the nicest guys you could meet. When he is using then he would steal anything. I know way bigger scumbags who aren’t addicts. I think if you consider it an illness then it is difficult to have anything but sympathy.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I always assumed the "junk" part of it was referring to the drug, as that was a slang term for it back in the day, not a statement on the societal value of the people addicted to it.

You genuinely think it's just a coincidence, then?

Fair enough. Just seems odd to me that the root-term 'junk' has adhered to the poorest people in society, and not those people with more middle-class addictions. Maybe that's just my being cynical.

yesto24

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's a great novel, btw. But apparently the term predates Burroughs's novel.

This is a bit of a tangent, maybe it belongs in a Homelessness thread, but imagine if there were a dog, or an agricultural animal, living in a doorway in any city of this country? They wouldn't be long there before they were claimed.

But under our economic system, human beings are less valuable than livestock.

Are you saying we can own people again?
****ing great. Just when all those Africans are coming here, no shipping costs. I'm getting in on the ground floor on this one. This time next year I will be a millionaire.