Amy Winehouse RIP xxxx

[dataDave]

I've not known anyone with a true addiction but I have known someone destroy their life through cannabis induced psychosis (very gentle guy, had to be held down by 4 police officers when it happened).

Doesn't that happen to something like one in 100,000 people? That's nothing compared to the frequency of booze related troubles.

Anyway, it's all good as long as you can moderate it. There is a reason why these things can be addictive, because there are GOOD. You would never get addicted to rubbing horse **** over your dick, because that sucks. They don't quit because they don't want to quit, because they enjoy the consumption regardless of whatever fallout.

[JSR]

To accuse someone that's addicted to drugs of pimping drugs culture is ridiculous, unless you knew her personally and can verify this. She was ill and she continued to take drugs because that's what her addiction made her do.

She DID pimp the drug culture. I don't think that was her intention in any way, but she was a public and popular figure, who came across as influenced more than she did not. As a person with a celebrity status, I think she had a certain responsibility to how they are perceived.

Edit:
And yeah, I've been around substance abusers for a long time to. Are my opinions valid now?

[Charlie]

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_info1.shtml

Legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and prescribed medication are far more dangerous than illegal drugs, some reports say as many as 12 times more dangerous.

[toythatkills]

She DID pimp the drug culture. I don't think that was her intention in any way, but she was a public and popular figure, who came across as influenced more than she did not. As a person with a celebrity status, I think she had a certain responsibility to how they are perceived.

She came across that way because that's what the papers were interested in. If she was completely fine for 360 days of the year, you'd only hear about the other five. Nobody here knew her or really knew anything about her life. We knew the bits that people wanted us to know, and those people were motivated by a want to make money. If anyone was pimping the Winehouse drugs angle it was the media, not her.

Edit:
And yeah, I've been around substance abusers for a long time to. Are my opinions valid now?

Your opinions on drugs users, sure. Your opinions on her, probably not.

[Jusatsushi]

So if I take an asprin it's 12 times more dangerous than a blotter of acid or X? Pfft...

[edit] Ttk, you only have to look at the Wino's physical decline to ascertain that she was NOT fine 360 days of the year. Or 3 days of the year. Allegedly. By me.

[Charlie]

Nobody here knew her or really knew anything about her life.

Exactly. It's rather unpleasant to see the level of judgmentalism her death has provoked. I can't remeber who said "Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes" but it's wisdom some would do well to heed. Everyone in life is fighting a hard battle, nobody is perfect, why bother criticising others when that energy is better spent improving ourselves? Might sound like hippy bull**** but surely it's a logical investment?

[toythatkills]

Ttk, you only have to look at the Wino's physical decline to ascertain that she was NOT fine 360 days of the year.

Well yeah, but the overall point still stands!

[Charlie]

So if I take an asprin it's 12 times more dangerous than a blotter of acid or X? Pfft...

[edit] Ttk, you only have to look at the Wino's physical decline to ascertain that she was NOT fine 360 days of the year. Or 3 days of the year. Allegedly. By me.

It doesn't mean that, no. It means take a given number of legal drug users and an equal number of illegal drug users and it won't be uncommon for 12 times as many legal drug users to die from (legal) drug abuse than those using the illegal drugs.

As for aspirin and acid. Feed a man 50 aspirin, feed another man 50 acid tabs, you'd be surprised who the more likely to die is, who the more likely to suffer serious internal damage is. Aspirin is a toxin, LSD isn't. Nobody has ever died from LSD (silly people on acid jump off bridges and die, but that isn't the LSD killing them, that's them killing themselves) where as aspirin is responsible for a number of deaths.

[koopatroopa90]

Nobody is perfect, why bother criticising others when that energy is better spent improving ourselves?

Agree with this 100%, but I have cut the bit "everyone is fighting a hard battle". Although this might be true I think some people have no concept of how lucky they are and that is the reason for them thinking they are fighting a "hard battle" when really they are on easy street!
I'd also add that telling others what they can do/think is a waste of time. If people are selfish enough to do things that negatively effect others then thats their choice, and if I want to think Winehouse was an idiot/victim/legend then I damn well will!

I tend to only read factual articles as all information sources, be that the media, a person or a group/organisation, will have an opinion and slant to what they are writing.

[Family Fry]

Nobody has ever died from LSD (silly people on acid jump off bridges and die, but that isn't the LSD killing them, that's them killing themselves)

Quote of the year.

[Charlie]

Hehe. Do some research. It's true. LSD is non-toxic, it might make you permanently crazy, certainly, but it won't kill you, even in ridiculously insane, super-dooper doses.

[Jusatsushi]

As for aspirin and acid. Feed a man 50 aspirin, feed another man 50 acid tabs, you'd be surprised who the more likely to die is, who the more likely to suffer serious internal damage is. Aspirin is a toxin, LSD isn't. Nobody has ever died from LSD (silly people on acid jump off bridges and die, but that isn't the LSD killing them, that's them killing themselves) where as aspirin is responsible for a number of deaths.

Well Darwin would argue that any man stupid enough to ingest 50 of anything that isn't some form of nutrition would deserve their fate and I would be inclined to agree. Go Darwin. \o/

[abigsmurf]

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/...cs_info1.shtml

Legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and prescribed medication are far more dangerous than illegal drugs, some reports say as many as 12 times more dangerous.

There's huge amounts of spin on that site.

For one thing, it doesn't compare like to like. It's comparing alcoholics to people who use a drug once a week. Those are entirely different things, it's basically comparing casual users to extreme users. How about comparing people who drink once a week instead of alcoholics? Oh, right, that would make cocaine look a hell of a lot more dangerous, can't have that! How many more overdoses would there be if cocaine was cheap and easily available rather then expensive and illegal?

If anything, that site is making a case AGAINST cocaine.

Also uses outdated statistics from a source that cannot easily be referenced and is inherently biased to begin with (Given it's from an essay, I doubt very much it's peer reviewed in any way).

[JSR]

She came across that way because that's what the papers were interested in. If she was completely fine for 360 days of the year, you'd only hear about the other five. Nobody here knew her or really knew anything about her life. We knew the bits that people wanted us to know, and those people were motivated by a want to make money. If anyone was pimping the Winehouse drugs angle it was the media, not her.

The frequency of her drug use none of us will ever know, no arguments there.

She was however portrayed and thus seen as a party heavy drug user by the general public. The media conveyed this message, that is true. But it all started with her. And as I said, a person should not be in the glamorous spotlight if there is any chance they can appear that way. As she appeared visible influenced in many public forums - even her own concerts - she definitely had not business being popular.

[Charlie]

There's huge amounts of spin on that site.

For one thing, it doesn't compare like to like. It's comparing alcoholics to people who use a drug once a week. Those are entirely different things, it's basically comparing casual users to extreme users. How about comparing people who drink once a week instead of alcoholics? Oh, right, that would make cocaine look a hell of a lot more dangerous, can't have that! How many more overdoses would there be if cocaine was cheap and easily available rather then expensive and illegal?

If anything, that site is making a case AGAINST cocaine.

Also uses outdated statistics from a source that cannot easily be referenced and is inherently biased to begin with (Given it's from an essay, I doubt very much it's peer reviewed in any way).

I agree with you to a degree, drawing sound conclusions from statistics isn't a watertight method, especially when it comes to illegal drug use v illegal drug deaths which, given it's nature, is a very secretive activity; I actually suspect there are far more illegal drug users than reports like that state which would mean an even smaller percentage of illegal drug users die from drug abuse compared to legal drug users.

But regardless, what reports and statistics like those do, to my mind, is highlight the way society accepts dangerous drugs if they have been sanctioned by governments, yet rejects safer drugs if they have been deemed 'dangerous' and 'illegal' by governments.