The word "junkies"

ceadaoin.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

I know that Burroughs refers to heroin as junk throughout junky so that's what I thought.

Gatling

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

That's it exactly ,

Most people I know that have gone through or have family's going through addiction problems always refer to them as junkies as well as the junkie themselves using the term to identify with ,
If we say it's a crime to call a addict an junkie , some others will take issue with using the word addict ,the drug user ,then substance users and we end up with more terms ,and more fauxrage

Will someone take offense to say someone described as an action jukie or adrenaline junkie

Hurrache

Vincent Vega wrote: »

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

Every single living thing are substance dependent. I'm particularly partial to the oul oxygen, water and food myself

OP will be heading the way of Joe Duffy and labeling them 'unwell'.

Capt'n Midnight

joeguevara wrote: »

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.

Unless an addict is trying to get clean there isn't much you can do for them.

Yes it is an illness , and yes we should try to de-escalate the criminalisation of drug taking like Portugal.

But not at the expense of law and order. Statistically speaking if I'm mugged or burgled there's a high chance it will be by someone from certain parts of Dublin and the proceeds will be used for guess what ? ( don't get me started on those from elsewhere who rob me by legal means )

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

if I'm mugged or burgled there's a high chance it will be by someone from certain parts of Dublin

Which parts?

plenty manage not to be junkies.

spose they must be bothered about being called junkie enough not to be junkies.

joeguevara

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Unless an addict is trying to get clean there isn't much you can do for them.

Yes it is an illness , and yes we should try to de-escalate the criminalisation of drug taking like Portugal.

But not at the expense of law and order. Statistically speaking if I'm mugged or burgled there's a high chance it will be by someone from certain parts of Dublin and the proceeds will be used for guess what ? ( don't get me started on those from elsewhere who rob me by legal means )

I was looking around the local ‘CEX’ shop ( for those who don’t know similar to cash converters who buy and sell electronics and computer games). An obvious addict came I. And took out about 50 computer games from different systems. The guy behind the counter bought them, no questions asked basically facilitating burglaries. But most break ins where I live aren’t by addicts. I am not going into who they are from because I hate those threads.

If it is considered an illness then it is sad the way people dehumanise them. I don’t think methadone is the answer. I was at a party where a load of people (from quite privileged backgrounds) were shoveling coke into themselves. One guy who was an ex heroin addict started a debate as to the difference between coke addicts and heroin addicts and how they are seen and treated in society. It was fascinating to see.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

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?

Any ideas on how to actually solve the actual drug problem or is it just another lefty mission you are on to remove offensive labels rather than suggest anything productive???

Yes too many Big Macs are obviously not good for you but you are comparing it to what is effectively a highly toxic substance on a massive scale entering the body and breaking it down with each injection??

Vincent Vega

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.

Maybe this is your own personal criteria, but I'd say it's fairly common for people to use the terms interchangeably.

Referring to someone in such a way, knowing nothing of their personal history and considering them simply as less than is in no way helpful to their rehabilitation and recovery.

I mean, supposing that is what we're hoping for in the first place.

Are you?

italodisco

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any ideas on how to actually solve the actual drug problem or is it just another lefty mission you are on to remove offensive labels rather than suggest anything productive???

Yes too many Big Macs are obviously not good for you but you are comparing it to what is effectively a highly toxic substance on a massive scale entering the body and breaking it down with each injection??

Definitely another lefty

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Any ideas on how to actually solve the actual drug problem

I think the proposed injection centres will go a long way.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes too many Big Macs are obviously not good for you but you are comparing it to what is effectively a highly toxic substance on a massive scale entering the body and breaking it down with each injection??

While being addicted to any substance is a bad idea, opiates in their pure unadulterated form administered at the right doses are relatively safe. It's the stuff it's mixed with on the street that does most of the damage.

Junkyard Tom

The babies and children we feel sorry for grow up to be the adults we can't bear to look at.

mcmoustache

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

You're right there. A middle class office worker with a solpadine problem won't be viewed as a junkie but a someone on the streets begging to feed a benzo addiction whill be viewed as a junkie. I'm not making a judgement here, just describing the perception.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

I think the proposed injection centres will go a long way.


While being addicted to any substance is a bad idea, opiates in their pure unadulterated form administered at the right doses are relatively safe. It the stuff it's mixed with on the street that does most of the damage.

I agree with this. I think at this stage that the illegalisation and whole 'war on drugs' is a pointless wasteful exercise when so much could be spent on controlling the problem. I personally think though that politicians let the charade go on because every now and then they like drugs on the table and cheap PR.

joeguevara

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Maybe this is your own personal criteria, but I'd say it's fairly common for people to use the terms interchangeably.

Referring to someone in such a way, knowing nothing of their personal history and considering them simply as less than is in no way helpful to their rehabilitation and recovery.

I mean, supposing that is what we're hoping for in the first place.

Are you?

I must admit I would often use the term junkie. I never knew the origin of the word and would never think an addict is a piece of junk. I doubt most people who use it do either.

My mates hates his brother for what he dodges to his family. But when he is clean you can see the love between them. I think people ridicule addicts too easy.

mcmoustache

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Unless an addict is trying to get clean there isn't much you can do for them.

Yes it is an illness , and yes we should try to de-escalate the criminalisation of drug taking like Portugal.

But not at the expense of law and order. Statistically speaking if I'm mugged or burgled there's a high chance it will be by someone from certain parts of Dublin and the proceeds will be used for guess what ? ( don't get me started on those from elsewhere who rob me by legal means )

I was actually going to call you out and argue with you about the bit in bold but then I had a think about it and you're technically correct. There are pockets of dublin with high concentrations of addicts feeding their habit.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with this. I think at this stage that the illegalisation and whole 'war on drugs' is a pointless wasteful exercise when so much could be spent on controlling the problem. I personally think though that politicians let the charade go on because every now and then they like drugs on the table and cheap PR.

It's quite a widely held opinion that Drugs already won the war. I'd be happy if they put up free injection centers out in Meath or somewhere. I work down by Merchant's Quay and I'd rather not have to see them.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

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?

Have you ever had someone come into your place of work and rob the money you made that day, and go through your personal belongings to see what they could rob from that too for a burger? Me neither. I have however been robbed by someone looking for cash for gear.
I don’t care what another person does as long as it doesn’t infringe on me, but my heart wasn’t long about ceasing to bleed for them when I fell victim to paying for their habit.
I don’t care if it’s choice or illness that made them do it, but aura no secret what heroin does and I have little sympathy any more for anyone who chooses that life.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's quite a widely held opinion that Drugs already won the war. I'd be happy if they put up free injection centers out in Meath or somewhere. I work down by Merchant's Quay and I'd rather not have to see them.

How do you get city based drug addicts up to Meath though? Although I agree that a countryside environment might be beneficial in recovery

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any ideas on how to actually solve the actual drug problem or is it just another lefty mission you are on to remove offensive labels rather than suggest anything productive???

nobody is ever going to "solve" the drug problem, insofar that it even is a problem. People will take drugs, and that's usually their choice. It isn't up to you or I to judge them, we can't walk in their shoes and we don't know what they've experienced. It simply isn't our place to do that.

What we can do, and it might be of some help, is to stop using the word 'junkie', with all that that word implies.

Yes too many Big Macs are obviously not good for you but you are comparing it to what is effectively a highly toxic substance on a massive scale entering the body and breaking it down with each injection??

I used a triad of examples, to point out that we all put junk in our bodies. It's interesting that you sought to emphasise my comparison with fast food, and not the more addictive, dangerous substances like alcohol and certain recreational drugs.

Nobody uses the word 'junkie' for some suburban soccer-mom with a benzo habit, nor some guy drinking whiskey in a bar at lunchtime. We reserve that word for the poorest people in society, who are about as close to 'human rubbish' as you can get.

'Junkie' is a disgusting word, it achieves absolutely nothing except to dehumanise and dismiss a group of people who have probably seen more misfortune in their (usually short) lives than most of us will ever even comprehend.

Dick Swiveller

Why don't we tell drug users to take responsibility for their actions?

s7ryf3925pivug

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

nobody is ever going to "solve" the drug problem, insofar that it even is a problem. People will take drugs, and that's usually their choice. It isn't up to you or I to judge them, we can't walk in their shoes and we don't know what they've experienced. It simply isn't our place to do that.

What we can do, and it might be of some help, is to stop using the word 'junkie', with all that that word implies.

I used a triad of examples, to point out that we all put junk in our bodies. It's interesting that you sought to emphasise my comparison with fast food, and not the more addictive, dangerous substances like alcohol and certain recreational drugs.

Nobody uses the word 'junkie' for some suburban soccer-mom with a benzo habit, nor some guy drinking whiskey in a bar at lunchtime. We reserve that word for the poorest people in society, who are about as close to 'human rubbish' as you can get.

'Junkie' is a disgusting word, it achieves absolutely nothing except to dehumanise and dismiss a group of people who have probably seen more misfortune in their (usually short) lives than most of us will ever even comprehend.

Oh I thought you had personal experience because of the indignant tone of your posts.

Guess you don't know whether those marks on baby changing tables are from heroin so. I reckon it is true that they are.

In Ballymun in the 80s, kids would walk past discarded needles on the street. Kids being kids, some would pick them up.

I personally was robbed by a very middle class English junkie who stayed in my house when I was a kid.

Not really the sort of stuff you associate with professionals and homemakrrs with secret benzo habits. (You're thinking of that from the bit in trainspotting when Renton refers to this as a socially acceptable addiction, right?)

It looks like a medical context is more effective for handling addiction than a judicial context. But not theft, violence, exposure of children to harm...

I don't think you know what you're talking about. The term is pejorative but it's there for a reason. They are less than human, in the sense they do not possess qualities we like to think of as "human".

Personally, repulsion at my own nicotine addiction was a driving force in successfully quitting. Thinking of myself in terms like junkie was beneficial. Personal responsibility has to be a thing.

Foweva Awone

Most addicts I know, their self-esteem is on the absolute floor. They already think of themselves as dirt. Calling them junkies etc only reinforces that negative self-image which probably contributed significantly to their addiction in the first place.

Dick Swiveller

Foweva Awone wrote: »

Most addicts I know, their self-esteem is on the absolute floor. They already think of themselves as dirt. Calling them junkies etc only reinforces that negative self-image which probably contributed significantly to their addiction in the first place.

What do you mean by addiction? Do you mean they are powerless to refrain from injecting drugs?

Foweva Awone

Stoolcup wrote: »

What do you mean by addiction? Do you mean they are powerless to refrain from injecting drugs?

That's actually the first step in AA/NA etc, admitting that you are powerless.

It's not a belief system I personally subscribe to - self-belief and empowerment were key to my own recovery from addiction. But I wouldn't dismiss the fellowship programs that require admitting powerlessness; those programs are the solution for many addicts.

DEFTLEFTHAND

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

The drug is the junk, not the user.

Like a wino or alcho for drunks. They're just terms that evolved.

Dick Swiveller

Foweva Awone wrote: »

That's actually the first step in AA/NA etc, admitting that you are powerless.

It's not a belief system I personally subscribe to - self-belief and empowerment were key to my own recovery from addiction. But I wouldn't dismiss the fellowship programs that require admitting powerlessness; those programs are the solution for many addicts.

I'm sorry to hear you went through a bad spell. I hope you feel better now. I'm just wondering what people mean when they use the term 'addiction'. It's a quite vague concept. Are we saying that the drug user is incapable of stopping his/her drug taking through force of will? Isn't it dangerous to tell people that they are hamstrung by an addiction and can not, through force of will, overcome this affliction?

Your Face

It's a tough one OP.

I'd hope that a person with addictions would eventually rid themselves of addiction and go on to build a good life.

However, my experiences with people with addictions is far from positive which leads to my indifference as to what terms people use to label addicts.

Donald Trump

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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.

That's terrible degrading and insulting to actual tramps.


Although.....perhaps that's why the little tramps you meet nowadays always want to come back to stay in your place after the nightclub. Dirty little minxes!

biko

Fast food junkies exist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spXBLol6yeM