I think the family is giving Murray his defense

I like something that was said on Joy Behar show. She said that Michael Jackson shouldnt be categorised as a drug addict, because he didnt chose to use painkillers to get high or for recreational use as other drug addicts do. People become addicts due to peer pressure, or just for the thrill of it..And she also said that circumstances led Jackson to become dependent on pain killers..It made me smile, because in my conversations with other people reagarding michael`s drug problem i would always correct them that he wasnt an addict.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Well I don't see at all. Perhaps we should read if others weigh in and give their impression of the difference, or not, and see if it affects yours (or my) impression.

Also, I'd added a little bit more to my post but you'd already responded -- maybe that would explain further. So now it reads:


hmmm...i disagree with the idea that MJ needed to have a 'bad boy' 'adult masculine' image. i also disagree about him having a demise. many on here expressed that they are appalled that people think that the girls love the masculine 'bad boy'. they say that it was MJ being himself that they loved. i heard that the 'bad' image was forced upon him by management..and quite frankly, making an album called 'bad'? it would take a lot more than that, to change who MJ really appeared to be. like you said...he never really changed, and the vultures descended. but losing one's own identity is inexcusable. i'd rather die being me, than live being somebody else's idea of me. MJ had people loving him and selling out his concerts, while he maintained the child image..

the vultures were just vultures. they didn't need an excuse to come after him, in their minds, except that they just hated him, and envied him, and wanted his money, etc.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

I am not saying you are wrong to correct people about Michael being an addict, but the fact is the general public does not really care. They have all but stop listening to the drug charges when they saw TII and saw for themselves that Michael was not wasted. Which is why Janet's interview dropped from the top news only hours after it aired.


i agree with you ...you've got a point

and so I nominate Kenny Ortega as MJ's legacy defender...
 
I dont know, cause in the first place when a doctor sees soemones addiction the first thing they should do is HELP THEM TO RECOVER, never gave them what they ask for, i mean, i think im beeing real
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

hmmm...i disagree with the idea that MJ needed to have a 'bad boy' 'adult masculine' image...

I didn't say an 'adult masculine' image. I said 'a more normal, human, adult image."

I don't think the androgyny harmed him at all, just as it hasn't harmed Prince. He DID need, however, an "adult" image.

You give MJ too little credit, and really seem to buying a bit into this "childish" media hype that WAS harmful to him. There's a huge difference between childish and having some child-like hobbies, like theme parks. By all accounts, he was no child being pushed around on his albums, but was the man in charge. I really disagree that he lost his identity in any way in his albums.

The media helped destroy him by infantilizing him... (*ThreadWhore Alert*) for more on this, see the thread MJ was a Sex God: Media Pretend Not to Notice.
 
Last edited:
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

I didn't say an 'adult masculine' image. I said 'a more normal, human, adult image."

I don't think the androgyny harmed him at all, just as it hasn't harmed Prince.

As for the rest of your post, you give MJ too little credit, and really seem to buying a bit into this "childish" media hype that WAS harmful to him. There's a huge difference between childish and having some child-like hobbies, like theme parks. By all accounts, he was no child being pushed around on his albums, but was the man in charge. I really disagree that he lost his identity in any way in his albums.

i'm not saying he was childish. i was saying he was child like..just like what you said. and i still maintain there was no demise. there was plenty of hate, and harm, and they killed him, but no demise. he was still the King and did well, career wise. whatever the media did to him, had nothing to do with is image. i give MJ plenty of credit. the media hurt him because of THEM. not because of him. they had their own issues, and took it out on him. and i didn't say he lost his identity. i did say management forced stuff on him, but i didn't say they succeeded in anything against him. i knew he was in charge. whatever they tried to force, he still remained stalwart. i know that. and i don't know what you mean by 'human'. his humanity was very clear. he always had a human image. the fact that the media was twisted, and distorted, and evil, doesn't change that.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

hmmm...i disagree with the idea that MJ needed to have a 'bad boy' 'adult masculine' image. i also disagree about him having a demise. many on here expressed that they are appalled that people think that the girls love the masculine 'bad boy'. they say that it was MJ being himself that they loved. i heard that the 'bad' image was forced upon him by management..and quite frankly, making an album called 'bad'? it would take a lot more than that, to change who MJ really appeared to be. like you said...he never really changed, and the vultures descended. but losing one's own identity is inexcusable. i'd rather die being me, than live being somebody else's idea of me. MJ had people loving him and selling out his concerts, while he maintained the child image..

the vultures were just vultures. they didn't need an excuse to come after him, in their minds, except that they just hated him, and envied him, and wanted his money, etc.



Actually, Michael said himself he didn't care about his angelic image. He such in several interviews. However, some fans wants to paint him as an innocent, naive saint. He said himself that he does do things that people may not like, although he did not flaunt it.

Also, his manger did not 'force' the bad boy image on him for the Bad album. Michael did that himself. He is the who wrote songs like Bad, Smooth Criminal, The Way You Make Me Feel, and Speed Demon. He is also the one who did the videos with him wearing black leather with chains, a white pimp suite which ended with him shooting a machine gun, and him using his homeboys to stalk a girl until she gave in to him.

We also cannot forget Dangerous with songs like Who is it, Dangerous, and In the Closet. The point of this being, Michael has always try to show that he was not an angel, but most didn't listen.

I think the reason why Bo G said his angelic image got him into trouble is look at 2005 trail. Most fans and even the public was shock to learn that Michael drank and he did it quite often. If this was a normal person, would alcohol had play such a big part in that trail? Or how about the porn and how they try to use that. Some people did even believe he had a drug problem in 93, because Michael Jackson does not do drugs.

He didn't need to be a 'bad boy', but he needed to presented as a real person and not saint. That is why everything he did was always analyze compare to most people to the point that anything normal he did was consider strange.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Actually, Michael said himself he didn't care about his angelic image. He such in several interviews. However, some fans wants to paint him as an innocent, naive saint. He said himself that he does do things that people may not like, although he did not flaunt it.

Also, his manger did not 'force' the bad boy image on him for the Bad album. Michael did that himself. He is the who wrote songs like Bad, Smooth Criminal, The Way You Make Me Feel, and Speed Demon. He is also the one who did the videos with him wearing black leather with chains, a white pimp suite which ended with him shooting a machine gun, and him using his homeboys to stalk a girl until she gave in to him.

We also cannot forget Dangerous with songs like Who is it, Dangerous, and In the Closet. The point of this being, Michael has always try to show that he was not an angel, but most didn't listen.

I think the reason why Bo G said his angelic image got him into trouble is look at 2005 trail. Most fans and even the public was shock to learn that Michael drank and he did it quite often. If this was a normal person, would alcohol had play such a big part in that trail? Or how about the porn and how they try to use that. Some people did even believe he had a drug problem in 93, because Michael Jackson does not do drugs.

He didn't need to be a 'bad boy', but he needed to presented as a real person and not saint. That is why everything he did was always analyze compare to most people to the point that anything normal he did was consider strange.

i guess we have to disagree. the songs he wrote didn't change his image. or else why did people keep harping on him? and apparently we have all heard different things. his song 'childhood' said that his fate was to replenish it. somewhere, you and i are not connecting here. he didn't change. and as far as 'in the closet' and stuff like that....no different to me than 'lady in my life' a lot of people consider that to be a smoldering ballad.

as far as things he did...a lot of drinking...a lot of conflicting stories on that. a little wine once in a while...having a wine cellar? that doesn't mean he was big on drinking...he invited guests, and they liked to do that.

swearing? that's no big deal. that really has nothing to do with what i am trying to say.

that trial had nothing to do with what image he was TRYING to portray. that trial had everything to do with his enemies having a problem with him for no reason.

but..whatever..we just have to agree to disagree. he was a real person. being a person of goodwill is a real person. nobody is trying to paint him as anything. he was what he was. as far as doing things he thinks people may not like...nobody knows what those were...whether someone liked something he did or not, would just have to vary from person to person. like you said..he didn't flaunt anything. so...it's anybody's guess about that stuff. trying to show he was not an angel? look...everybody wants their interpretation of stuff. i don't think Michael was TRYING to be anybody. he was himself. what that means? i ain't gunna worry about getting into discussion about that..
 
By constantly talking about Michael being on drugs and failed interventions and not making it clear that Michael wasn't apparently on anything other than what Murray gave him when he died. According to the autopsy, his organs were not damaged by years of drug use but the media wants to portray a drug addict and the family goes along with it. They are giving Murray a defense and giving the potential jury reasonable doubt.

i agree.Michael was not a drug addict,you can see in This is it he was clean and focused,not like in '93!they should stop with this nonsense!
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

i guess we have to disagree. the songs he wrote didn't change his image. or else why did people keep harping on him? and apparently we have all heard different things. his song 'childhood' said that his fate was to replenish it. somewhere, you and i are not connecting here. he didn't change. and as far as 'in the closet' and stuff like that....no different to me than 'lady in my life' a lot of people consider that to be a smoldering ballad.

as far as things he did...a lot of drinking...a lot of conflicting stories on that. a little wine once in a while...having a wine cellar? that doesn't mean he was big on drinking...he invited guests, and they liked to do that.

swearing? that's no big deal. that really has nothing to do with what i am trying to say.

that trial had nothing to do with what image he was TRYING to portray. that trial had everything to do with his enemies having a problem with him for no reason.

but..whatever..we just have to agree to disagree. he was a real person. being a person of goodwill is a real person. nobody is trying to paint him as anything. he was what he was. as far as doing things he thinks people may not like...nobody knows what those were...whether someone liked something he did or not, would just have to vary from person to person. like you said..he didn't flaunt anything. so...it's anybody's guess about that stuff. trying to show he was not an angel? look...everybody wants their interpretation of stuff. i don't think Michael was TRYING to be anybody. he was himself. what that means? i ain't gunna worry about getting into discussion about that..


You twisted my words. I never said he was trying to change his image. I said he was trying to show he was no angel. To show he was a real person who did not always do good things. That is not changing his image, that showing that had muliple sides of himself like any other person.

I also didn't say he did alot of drinking. I said people were shock to find out he drank at all. He also did drink pretty often depending on the situration like most people. There were people and some fans that thought he never took a drank in his life.

There was also the big fuss about porn and finding out he does curse. This is because this image by fans and media alike build around him that he was some sort of priest who live some kind of holy life. I didn't say he try to portray with that image considering he try to keep it hidden, but people were surprise to find out these things about him, although it is perfectly normal for anyone else.

There are fans who treat him like a saint and Michael said he was anything but. The reason most people dogged him or criticize certain aspects of him was because they didn't see him as a real person. Why do you think his own family had to humanize him at his memorial. Most people could even picture Michael as a father because he had that childlike image.
 
all i have to say is that MJ was yes a king when it come to his musical, artistical stuff, but he was kidlike, he was, but to me Michael would pretty much believe in some people like if they were, i dont know, he would trust some people more than its indicated, but to me that comes from feeling lonely, i mean, he would trust people like Arnold Klein for instance... Klein would drug him, now he denies it(of course), i mean come on, Klein is a whore but he is like an actor and he would pretty much play or fool MJ, i mean we all know that, Michael and i hate to say it was pretty much or with some people, he was naive, sorry for my expressions about Klein beein a whore, but he IS

klein is now going out saying defamatory lies cause he's feels that making Michael look bad, he would make ppl say, who cares Michael Jackson, like you know, its good if klein did that(kill him)
 
all i have to say is that MJ was yes a king when it come to his musical, artistical stuff, but he was kidlike, he was, but to me Michael would pretty much believe in some people like if they were, i dont know, he would trust some people more than its indicated, but to me that comes from feeling lonely, i mean, he would trust people like Arnold Klein for instance... Klein would drug him, now he denies it(of course), i mean come on, Klein is a whore but he is like an actor and he would pretty much play or fool MJ, i mean we all know that, Michael and i hate to say it was pretty much or with some people, he was naive, sorry for my expressions about Klein beein a whore, but he IS

klein is now going out saying defamatory lies cause he's feels that making Michael look bad, he would make ppl say, who cares Michael Jackson, like you know, its good if klein did that(kill him)



I think naive is a strong word considering no matter how careful we are, we can all be taken for fools. Since we do not know the story between Michael and Klien and alot of other people in his life, we shouldn't judge Michael as being naive.

We all have our share of false friend and backstabbers and Michael is no different than anyone else. That my feeling on the subject.
 
I just hope there will be justice for Michael I sometimes doubt there will be. i don't dislike Michaels' family I just wish if they have to speak they would be careful what they say at least until Murray is charged and arrested. I worry about the media twisting things.

Julia
 
I must be weird... I don't have my mind made up on this one way or the other because I don't feel I have "enough data." So I will continue to assess any new data that comes in... in this case from Janet.

I have no strong opinion on whether the family should speak openly about their impressions of Michael. But I kind of lean toward being sympathetic to them.

There's probably not a simple answer to "Dependence: Yea or Nay?" This conversation needs to be very nuanced. Based on the admittedly spotty data the public has so far, here's my "ten-point theory on MJ's drug use." ANY of it could turn out to be wrong. Please don't hurt me.

***Highly Speculative Opinion Alert ***

1) MJ was probably chronically dependent on sedatives for insomnia, and sometimes for daytime anxiety, most of his life since the 1993 case. (Probably mostly benzodiazepines. This excludes Propofol (not a sedative but an anesthetic).

2) This ratcheted up during two or more eras, including at the end, to Propofol. He'd probably been using Propofol for several weeks at the end. Using Propofol to sleep, even for a few weeks, constitutes a period of "Propofol dependency."

3) So Evan Chandler indirectly killed Michael Jackson.

4) No one, no one, no one but the administering doctor(s) ever in MJ's entire life had the slightest clue about MJ's Propofol use. It is so wildly unimaginable that anyone trying to read him -- including family and managers -- would guess wrong and misunderstand him in many ways.

5) In his final era, evidence does not point to his use of sedatives for daytime anxiety. This means he probably felt pretty relaxed and confident most of the time, which makes me happy. Apparently gumchewing was getting him through the days well enough! No pills were found in his stomach because he only needed drugs at night, where he was getting everything he needed by IV.

6) In the past, he's been dependent on painkillers (narcotics) occasionally to treat pain from the burn and other conditions. This appears to have ratcheted up to use for mood elevation due to Chandler.

7) In his final era, evidence suggests he had beaten narcotics dependency! He was surely in pain at times, and wished for a mood lift at times, but apparently this was within manageable limits and he wasa feeling pretty darn good most of the time. I"m very, very proud of him for this.

8) Chronic use of Propofol and/or sedatives to sleep is not sustainable for anyone's health. And it surely created occasionally visible daytime side effects. Family members saw this, guessed correctly at a drug dependence, but undoubtedly incorrectly at the cause and type. They probably incorrectly thought he was on daytime painkillers and sedatives An understandable and forgivable error, and not terribly significant. Either way an intervention was needed right up to the end. I'm glad to hear the attempts were made, that there's still that much intra-family support.9) Entering his final era, MJ had read all about Propofol and its dangers. His dependency on sedatives had created a drug tolerance that rendered these no longer insufficiently reliable for him to get him through the show. This dependence he did not feel he could beat, sadly. He convinced himself it was his only choice and he could handle it. This defines dependence. He had to work pretty hard and very, very carefully to find a doctor who would administer Propofol.

10) There's always a predator ready to pounce on such vulnerable prey. MJ's actions are completely independent of Murray's criminal behavior, and Murray should be imprisoned for "indifferently depraved" homicide.



from everything we heard , THEY SAW NOTHING, they felt he was on something BECAUSE THEY WERE DENIED ACCESS TO HIM .

at least for 2007 , one family member was accused by mj of plotting against him , the other family members were planning to do reunion concerts .These were the main concerns back then , Randy wanted MJ to stop his legal action against his team of lawyers and accountants , the other siblings and joe wanted him to tour , Katherine and janet wanted MJ to tour with the brothers and drop everything he felt against Randy because they may very well thought Randy did nothing wrong, it's MJ being ungrateful as always .

everything was documented in 2007 , they did not even met him based on what they themselves claimed to form an opinion whether he was on drugs or not . they were simply blocked from his life because of what Randy did and because of that they felt he must have been addict . They could not say he refused to talk to us because whenever we called him we wanted something, surely Randy could not say he refused to answer my calls because I stole and plotted against him , they tried to shift the blame to him by saying he did not want to meet us because he was on drugs and he knew we wanted to help but he was in denial .

THEY SAW NOTHING according to THEM .



the last months of his life, THEY again wanted access because they felt they should have been part of his comeback , when he refused , again rumours of drug abuse spread like fire .

He was not addicted to propofol , he simply suffered from severe insomnia for many many years, he did not take propofol for it . But when he had to work out and rehearse for 8 hours everyday , HE NEEDED TO SLEEP . he could no longer stay up for days like he used to do , he had to get some rest .


why do you find this very hard to understand ?

his insomnia had nothing to do with drugs, with propofol. he suffered from it when he was still very young touring with the jackson 5 .

MJ did not 'treat' insomnia using propofol, it was a temporary solution to his chronical problem , that was not dependency .



when MJ needed help he got it , the family had nothing to do with it . the family wanted money, wanted access to ask for money that was it , they cared less whether he was on drugs or not . but they were convincing themselves and trying to convince others , the problem was not them , the problem was mj .

they could not blame themselves for his attempts to stay away from them, so they blamed him and his drug abuse .


it is so obvious , why people keep forgeting these very simple facts . we all know mj denied them access because they always treated him as a commodity , he said it many times .

look what they did after he died , they were fighting for his money , all of them sold stories, all of them tried to get some money from this tragedy . that what mj hated the most . he wanted to be loved as a brother a son only , not as a means to get money .

he meant money to them, he meant power to them , read his mother's book , she was always upset because Mike had all the money and the siblings had nothing . she was not upset with janet , she was upset with Mike .
 
Last edited:
why are people always trying to paint him like a different person? he was a sensitive good person too good for his own sake I believe that's why he ended up the way he did, because this man didn't know how to say no and he'd rather have his own feelings hurt rather than hurt somebody else's feelings that's what made him so special. sometimes I wonder how did he manage to stay so true to himself in that ruthless world he was living in, I think it was the isolation itself played a big part in that it helped him preserve himself and his beliefs
as for the drinking thing do you know all the details of the trial? he was embarrassed to even drink in front of his kids even if it was the occasional glass, I'm sure this comes from the strict education he received at home out of all his siblings he was the closest to his mother and she was very strict and just like him she always remained true to her beliefs

anyway back on topic...I can't believe what the family is doing to him. you know what MJ should've done? he should've told them to get off his back! and stop being so nice to them! there's only one thing they wanted from him after 2005 and it was that pathetic reunion yes pathetic! they did the same thing in 1993, they always tried to ride his coattails it doesn't make it right just because they were family. he didn't leave them any money and now look what they're doing to him
 
why are people always trying to paint him like a different person? he was a sensitive good person too good for his own sake I believe that's why he ended up the way he did, because this man didn't know how to say no and he'd rather have his own feelings hurt rather than hurt somebody else's feelings that's what made him so special. sometimes I wonder how did he manage to stay so true to himself in that ruthless world he was living in, I think it was the isolation itself played a big part in that it helped him preserve himself and his beliefs
as for the drinking thing do you know all the details of the trial? he was embarrassed to even drink in front of his kids even if it was the occasional glass, I'm sure this comes from the strict education he received at home out of all his siblings he was the closest to his mother and she was very strict and just like him she always remained true to her beliefs

anyway back on topic...I can't believe what the family is doing to him. you know what MJ should've done? he should've told them to get off his back! and stop being so nice to them! there's only one thing they wanted from him after 2005 and it was that pathetic reunion yes pathetic! they did the same thing in 1993, they always tried to ride his coattails it doesn't make it right just because they were family. he didn't leave them any money and now look what they're doing to him

so true.
 
All these jacksons should just shut up. Hate them for speaking about MJ esp the drug addict stuff. Even if he's one, they dont have to speak in front of the media about it knowing how it's going to get reported. Some of the Jackson family members are so
fuc k*ng annoying.
 
All these jacksons should just shut up. Hate them for speaking about MJ esp the drug addict stuff. Even if he's one, they dont have to speak in front of the media about it knowing how it's going to get reported. Some of the Jackson family members are so
fuc k*ng annoying.
word.
 
I like something that was said on Joy Behar show. She said that Michael Jackson shouldnt be categorised as a drug addict, because he didnt chose to use painkillers to get high or for recreational use as other drug addicts do. People become addicts due to peer pressure, or just for the thrill of it..And she also said that circumstances led Jackson to become dependent on pain killers..It made me smile, because in my conversations with other people reagarding michael`s drug problem i would always correct them that he wasnt an addict.
thats a person beeing reasonable:yes:, wow, unbelivable these days, she's smart, thats exactly what i said

I think naive is a strong word considering no matter how careful we are, we can all be taken for fools. Since we do not know the story between Michael and Klien and alot of other people in his life, we shouldn't judge Michael as being naive.

We all have our share of false friend and backstabbers and Michael is no different than anyone else. That my feeling on the subject.
Well yeah, you have a point there, yeah, i dont know what the right expression would be, you are right, i think may be he trusted the wrong people soemtimes...that would be more fittable i think, anyway i just know he wasnt a drug addict, he had a problem yes but is not like he wanted to get high for Gods sake, that just wasnt Michael...
 
I have been a fan since he was a little boy and we are the same age so I have seen Michaels career path and the news reporting change along the way. It all started really with his skin change color and his surgeries and ran from there.

I sincerely doubt what Janet said is going to hurt him at all any more. Really, whats the difference? We fans love him anyway. I see that some fans can not even accept that he is human and have put him in some super human category. They insist he never did anything wrong and was the most wonderful creature to walk the earth and a saint. To me, that's laughable because clearly, he was a human being with many issues just like most of us. He just happened to be a really talented one who also had a lot of money and could play out some things in his life (such as Neverland) the majority of people never could because we simply don't have the money to live that way.

It was known that he had some sort of dependency on pain killers at one time in his life. He admitted it. So he drank. He wasn't an alcoholic.

I think his religious background and his strange family life lead him down a different path than most of us can imagine, and when the public sees someone as "different", the press runs with it.

For me, it is all ok and doesn't change the fact that he was still a great person who did a lot for children, he made great music and he could dance better than anyone. I think none of us know the true Michael. He was a superstar and we didn't live with him and I'll be honest here. You can live in the same house as someone and not know everything; so who are we as fans to say for sure what he was 'really' like. We all have a love and respect for him and now that he is gone some of us feel we need to protect him.

I don't feel that way. You are never going to change the way some people thought of him. THIS IS IT was great and showed him to be a true performer in great shape. Many have seen it and it is popular and has done better than expected. The record sales of the same have done extremely well. That tells us that enough people DO love him and his music.

Of course, when his family starts talking all we can do is roll our eyes and "It Makes You Wanna Scream", but thats just how it is. We can't stop it and never could.
 
thats a person beeing reasonable:yes:, wow, unbelivable these days, she's smart, thats exactly what i said


Well yeah, you have a point there, yeah, i dont know what the right expression would be, you are right, i think may be he trusted the wrong people soemtimes...that would be more fittable i think, anyway i just know he wasnt a drug addict, he had a problem yes but is not like he wanted to get high for Gods sake, that just wasnt Michael...



I agree with your point and I do wonder sometimes how Michael met some of his case of characters. However, I will not judge because I got involve with characters that I wonder till this day what the heck was I thinking :lol:

Also, there is just one thing I want to clear up. I have a relative who had an addiction to painkillers. She is better now, but you have to remember that once you are an addict, you are an addict until the day you die. So, people calling Michael a drug addict is not completely wrong in that sense. Even among addicts this is the rule. Which is why they are often classified as recovering addicts, even if they remain sober for years or for the rest of their lives.

Anyway, people who become addict to painkiller do not do so for the sake of getting high like other drugs. They do for one or two reasons. The first being they had a real medical problem and they take pills. Then when they get off of it, they feel terrible. Like having headaches, body aches, feeling cold or hot, all and all not pretty. This when they become chemical addictive and they need the pill to stop the pain. That is when they have to go into rehab and detox and be wean off with a drug substitute.

The second one, which my relative is, is when you are stress, worried, or just cannot deal with something and you take pills to numb emotional pain. That can lead you to coming addictive in an emotional sense and may to lead to a chemical addiction.

I am not saying Michael was a drug addict and I personally do not believe he was one, however he was a recovering drug addicted since addiction never truly goes away. But, he never took pain pills to get high like other drugs.

I just wanted to clear those point up.
 
Last edited:
Its not like you are adiccted for the rest of your life, thats not completely right, there are personalities who tend to be like that, anyways in Michaels case, he needed them, i mean, but when someone says drug addicted, some people who are ignorants, tend to visualize the whole, you know, classical picture, and its not like that on every case, not like that, wonder why so many people have such a close mind, i mean anyone could figure what i just said, am i wrong or what?:mello:
 
Its not like you are adiccted for the rest of your life, thats not completely right, there are personalities who tend to be like that, anyways in Michaels case, he needed them, i mean, but when someone says drug addicted, some people who are ignorants, tend to visualize the whole, you know, classical picture, and its not like that on every case, not like that, wonder why so many people have such a close mind, i mean anyone could figure what i just said, am i wrong or what?:mello:


Anyone who struggle with addiction does so for the rest of their lives, that is a proven fact. Weather a person relapse or not depends on the individual. Ray Charles, rest his soul, was a heroin addict, but once he got clean he stayed clean until the day he died. Someone like DJ Am, may he too rest in peace, struggle with is addiction until the died of a relapse.

My relatives has remain clean for years, but even she still goes to group meeting and have friends with other recovering addict. When people say it is a disease they are not saying that to be nice.

We do not know the extent of Michael's addiction, but he would be classified as a recovering addict because you never really get over you addiction. It is like a cancer that goes into remission and it might come back at any time.
 
Anyone who struggle with addiction does so for the rest of their lives, that is a proven fact. Weather a person relapse or not depends on the individual. Ray Charles, rest his soul, was a heroin addict, but once he got clean he stayed clean until the day he died. Someone like DJ Am, may he too rest in peace, struggle with is addiction until the died of a relapse.

My relatives has remain clean for years, but even she still goes to group meeting and have friends with other recovering addict. When people say it is a disease they are not saying that to be nice.

We do not know the extent of Michael's addiction, but he would be classified as a recovering addict because you never really get over you addiction. It is like a cancer that goes into remission and it might come back at any time.
Umm, no, i can tell you
 
even if MJ was a heroin addict, Alcahol addict, and whatever kind of addict you want. That doesn't change the fact that his death was ruled a homicide. That, in itself, is a case no one can dismiss.

I have no problem with the family telling the truth about MJ, i don't see how this will really harm him..
 
it's not drugs that killed him by his own hand. it was administered by the doctor. it was reckless behaviour, conduct before and after the fact, and lying that will implicate murray. not what mike took in 05 or 03 or 93 or whenever.
 
Back
Top