Michael & the term: "Drug Addict"

[legacylegacy7]

Tito and Rebbie Jackson's recent comments are the biggest display of family betrayal. Especially as the world prepares for a verdict in the Conrad Murray trail. Tito also signed the letter in 2007 read it at the page below.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Jackson-was-NOT-an-addict/288817687803025

 

[marebear]

If Murray walks I will blame them too.

 

[ForeverKOP]

Haven't been here for a few days -- just wondering what the fan response is to Frank Cascio's new book/promotional interviews where he calls Michael a drug addict and describes personal accounts of how he dealt with Michael's dependence on medications and the state that they put him in. Are most fans rejecting or accepting his words on this topic?

 

[Victory22]

Frank was MJ's manager during the time of his addiction but MJ got clean.

 

[Severus Snape]

Michael was NOT a drug addict. You're not really allowed to call yourself a drug addict until you skip school and plan out a whole interstate trip to meet a sketchy bloke and get your fix, lol. There is a certain desperation in the strings of your heart which compels you to act thus, and as far as I can see, Michael did not fit this criteria.

He was an insomniac looking for a solution to his problem, like millions of Americans inflicted with the same. Murray gave him an inappropriate solution, which only he would know was improper, as he was the medic. The patient would theoretically have no manner of knowing the propriety or lack thereof in a given treatment, which is why he places his trust in the doctor, who attended medical school to gain knowledge lay men do not possess.

 

[kissybissy]

It was not Murray who introduced MJ to Propofol. In court, nurse Lee (and a doctor???, I don't remember) said that Michael asked for Propofol. Murray was the only person who gave him the drug at home, something, it seems, no one accepted to.

 

[Severus Snape]

It was not Murray who introduced MJ to Propofol. In court, nurse Lee (and a doctor???, I don't remember) said that Michael asked for Propofol. Murray was the only person who gave him the drug at home, something, it seems, no one accepted to.

Evidently Murray is not the only doctor to screw up, but by far his deviation has been the worst. I should have been more specific, but either way, Michael was no drug addict.

 

[Resa]

Haven't been here for a few days -- just wondering what the fan response is to Frank Cascio's new book/promotional interviews where he calls Michael a drug addict and describes personal accounts of how he dealt with Michael's dependence on medications and the state that they put him in. Are most fans rejecting or accepting his words on this topic?

Frank described Michael as a situational drug addict on 20/20. Since then he has said that he used a poor choice of words to describe Michael. After the 20/20 interview he has said that Michael was not a drug addict. Maybe you can contact Frank and ask him what he really meant by the phrase "situational drug addict."

 

[Severus Snape]

^What the bloody f--k is a "situational" drug addict? Is "situational" even a proper word?!

....where does it all END?!!?

 

[KOPV]

Me personally I consider the fact he became highly dependant on specific medication to help fall asleep.. I don't feel comfortable calling him an addict though for a couple reasons..

1) He depended on the meds at specific times of his life.. not on going!!
2) he from at least what we know did not have withdrawl type symptoms when he was off

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

The term "situational addict" sounds like an oxymoron :doh: I don't know why Frank said it. I've heard of the term "situational depression" before, but not that. I think it's an either or thing. You're either an addict or you're not.

 

[Severus Snape]

The term "situational addict" sounds like an oxymoron :doh: I don't know why Frank said it. I've heard of the term "situational depression" before, but not that. I think it's an either or thing. You're either an addict or you're not.

Yep, you can't just be a situational addict. Trust me, with drugs, there is no grey zone (or if there is it is very ephemeral). Either you're not using drugs, or you're convulsing and ruminating about when you will get your next dose, tearing up the walls and screaming in your mind until you do. It's not something you can exactly compartmentalize, or somehow exhibit only "situationally."

Sure you can hide it from some people, but if those people are your friends/family, then they're quite negligent to begin with.

 

[Anna]

Benzodiazepines by nature are addictive, which is why unless absolutely necessary they are only given in the short term. It seems Michael took them long term. So he would have become dependant on them. So I guess in a sense he was a drug addict. As in, he was addicted to an addictive medication, prescribed for a real problem.

 

[Severus Snape]

Benzodiazepines by nature are addictive, which is why unless absolutely necessary they are only given in the short term. It seems Michael took them long term. So he would have become dependant on them. So I guess in a sense he was a drug addict. As in, he was addicted to an addictive medication, prescribed for a real problem.

Lorazepam is great, and yes it creates dependence, but really anything does over long-time. Some people do take benozs for long-term. Even something as useless as antidepressants, if taken long-term, will cause withdrawal symptoms, but these people who are taking doses for legitimate problems, in my very purist view, are not drug addicts.

And Lorazepam is sometimes prescribed for treatment of insomnia.

 

[Anna]

Lorazepam is great, and yes it creates dependence, but really anything does over long-time. Some people do take benozs for long-term. Even something as useless as antidepressants, if taken long-term, will cause withdrawal symptoms, but these people who are taking doses for legitimate problems, in my very purist view, are not drug addicts.

And Lorazepam is sometimes prescribed for treatment of insomnia.

LOL. Antidepressants aren't useless. If it wasn't for Prozac I would probably have killed myself by now. It's the only thing that keeps me vaguely sane. Of course different ones work for different people. I went through 5 other antidepressants before I found the right one for me.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Theres a difference between being an addict and being dependent.my mother takes painkillers everyday cause of health issues.she dependent on them to deal with her pain.shes not an addict. we dont know if mj was taking benzos long term. we can see what was prescribed and more importantly what was taken from what was found in the house. and from that evidence mj was under using the medication.

 

[Severus Snape]

LOL. Antidepressants aren't useless. If it wasn't for Prozac I would probably have killed myself by now. It's the only thing that keeps me vaguely sane. Of course different ones work for different people. I went through 5 other antidepressants before I found the right one for me.

Lol, if it wasn't for Zoloft, I would have probably never tried to kill myself. 8D

Thank god I have real help now. The point is, you can't do s--t with antidepressants, all they do is make you feel like a bloody zombie and/or want to kill yourself/everyone else. At least lorazepam does its job.

 

[Anna]

Lol, if it wasn't for Zoloft, I would have probably never tried to kill myself. 8D

Thank god I have real help now. The point is, you can't do s--t with antidepressants, all they do is make you feel like a bloody zombie and/or want to kill yourself/everyone else. At least lorazepam does its job.

Only some antidepressants do that. You can't generalise like that. For **** sake. And benzodiazepines also can make you feel like a zombie. I felt like a zombie when I was on Diazepam.

 

[Severus Snape]

Only some antidepressants do that. You can't generalise like that. For **** sake. And benzodiazepines also can make you feel like a zombie. I felt like a zombie when I was on Diazepam.

Benzos are generally great, though. It's only rare for someone to really zombie out the way one does with antidepressants with benzos. They generally relax you, especially if you suffer from anxiety like I do--they give you that elusive feeling of wellness and happiness, unlike antidepressants. There's a reason antidepressants don't sell on the street, and that's because they have no value whatsoever, therapeutic or otherwise.

I've been on Prozac too, and it sucked, so I would say they all do similar disservices, which would make sense since they're all SSRIs.

In any case, I agree with Elusive in that dependence for an ongoing problem does not warrant the label "drug addict."

 

[Anna]

Benzos are generally great, though. It's only rare for someone to really zombie out the way one does with antidepressants with benzos. They generally relax you, especially if you suffer from anxiety like I do--they give you that elusive feeling of wellness and happiness, unlike antidepressants. There's a reason antidepressants don't sell on the street, and that's because they have no value whatsoever, therapeutic or otherwise.

I've been on Prozac too, and it sucked, so I would say they all do similar disservices, which would make sense since they're all SSRIs.

In any case, I agree with Elusive in that dependence for an ongoing problem does not warrant the label "drug addict."

All antidepressants are as effective as each other. But because people react to each one differently, you usually have to try several to find the one that works for you. If they didn't work for you, then that's too bad. But they are helpful to many people.

 

[Severus Snape]

^My brother has been on like, pretty much all the SSRIs for over 10 years, alternating between each at his doctor's discretion, and nothing has helped. They might have a certain "placebo" effect in some people, but they're generally garbage, and dangerous to boot. If you're gonna put yourself in danger, at least do so with some useful/fun drugs, not SSRIs.

With that said, glad you think they work, keep it up.

 

[Anna]

^My brother has been on like, pretty much all the SSRIs for over 10 years, alternating between each at his doctor's discretion, and nothing has helped. They might have a certain "placebo" effect in some people, but they're generally garbage, and dangerous to boot. If you're gonna put yourself in danger, at least do so with some useful/fun drugs, not SSRIs.

With that said, glad you think they work, keep it up.

Riiight... Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, so I'm going to leave this conversation.

 

[Severus Snape]

Riiight... Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, so I'm going to leave this conversation.

I do, and I'm entitled to my opinion. You have no idea how those things have destroyed the lives of people around me. Best for you to leave this conversation before it gets personal. Enjoy your Prozac.

 

[KOPV]

^ Cold!!

 

[soulmum]

Wish people would just agree to disagree without resorting to insults. Life is too short.

 

[ForeverKOP]

Yep, you can't just be a situational addict. Trust me, with drugs, there is no grey zone (or if there is it is very ephemeral). Either you're not using drugs, or you're convulsing and ruminating about when you will get your next dose, tearing up the walls and screaming in your mind until you do. It's not something you can exactly compartmentalize, or somehow exhibit only "situationally."

Sure you can hide it from some people, but if those people are your friends/family, then they're quite negligent to begin with.

Wait, then where does Michael fall into your two-part scenario? You put it as if a person is not using drugs, they're fine, but if they are using drugs, they're pining for it 24/7 at an extreme level. Obviously, we know Michael was using drugs - so would you say he fell into the second category (dark red)? Because from this theory, it doesn't seem like there's a "middle"...there's two extreme ends of the spectrum.

It was not Murray who introduced MJ to Propofol. In court, nurse Lee (and a doctor???, I don't remember) said that Michael asked for Propofol. Murray was the only person who gave him the drug at home, something, it seems, no one accepted to.

Exactly. I've brought this up before. If Michael was really the first person to introduce Propofol into his relationship with Murray, then he bears significant responsibility for what happened too.

Frank described Michael as a situational drug addict on 20/20. Since then he has said that he used a poor choice of words to describe Michael. After the 20/20 interview he has said that Michael was not a drug addict. Maybe you can contact Frank and ask him what he really meant by the phrase "situational drug addict."

Frank apologized for calling him an addict? When?

I watched the Q&A where he emphatically stated that "He was not a drug addict!", but I have a strong feeling he only said that to cater to Michael's fans who wanted to hear this. Not once have I heard him apologize for calling Michael an addict during his media/promotional spree. He molded his words to fit the audience that they were being broadcast to. That's not sincere - seems like a two-faced hypocrite to me.

 

[Severus Snape]

Wait, then where does Michael fall into your two-part scenario? You put it as if a person is not using drugs, they're fine, but if they are using drugs, they're pining for it 24/7 at an extreme level. Obviously, we know Michael was using drugs - so would you say he fell into the second category (dark red)? Because from this theory, it doesn't seem like there's a "middle"...there's two extreme ends of the spectrum.

Like I said, if there ever is a middle between straightedge and drug addiction (in regards to highly addictive substances as a general concept), it doesn't last very long. Second, I was talking generally regarding drugs (and I reckon mostly about the illicit ones), I was not talking about Michael specifically, but about people who truly are drug addicts. I do not consider Michael a drug addict. Yes, he was using medication, but he wasn't self-prescribing nor experimenting with stuff, and as far as we know he wasn't convulsing for it either.

Obivously millions of people throughout the world depend on some drug or other for whatever set of medical conditions/problems, and yet we do not call them drug addicts. Michael, in my personal opinion, would fall under the same category that EM describes:

Theres a difference between being an addict and being dependent.my mother takes painkillers everyday cause of health issues.she dependent on them to deal with her pain.shes not an addict. we dont know if mj was taking benzos long term. we can see what was prescribed and more importantly what was taken from what was found in the house. and from that evidence mj was under using the medication.

Let me make this short for you: I was basically trying to discredit Cascio's description of Michael as a "situational" drug addict (whatever that means). What I was trying to say is that, generally, people either are or aren't drug addicts. There is no such thing as a "part-time" drug addict. However, there is a difference between dependence and addiction, at least the way I see it.

Thus, I would not consider people who are dependent on medication for the treatment of long-term problems to be drug addicts, and people who do not fall into this category either are or aren't drug addicts.

There is no such thing as a "situational" drug addict, is what I am trying to say.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Totally agree with u sev. frank obviously doesnt know the diff between addiction and dependency . as u say u cant be a situational addict but u can be a situational dependent depending on how your health is at diff times. ie when u have flare ups

 

[kissybissy]

There's a thin line between an addiction and dependence. Usually the word addiction is used when someone is taking illegal drugs. When someone is making use of medicines longer than they usually needed to take them, the term dependency is normally used. Not like the meds ppl need to take for chronic diseases, for example. According to Oxford dictionary dependence (also dependency) is the state of being addicted to something (= unable to stop taking or using it). As was pointed out here, we don't know how long Michael was taking the medications found in his room. Based on the evidence presented in the trial and was said and written by those around him, we can assume he had some kind of addiction, or dependence, if you prefer. And I agree Frank Cascio said Michael was not addicted because he didn't want to upset Michael's fans, who are those who probably will buy his book.

 

[KOPV]

I see people batteling eachother about how people react to drugs.. Everyone reacts differently and there is a reason why on many anti depressant commercials it says.. '''....If thoughts of suicide..." Our bodies are balanced differently, for many it would help when needed, and some will not and possibly do harm..

most drugs can have very detrimental side effects... if that is the case for an individual GET OFF OF THEM.. if it is helping you, stay on them, yet be cautious and aware..

anything that ulters your brain and chemicals can be dangerous..