Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)
Once again the EVIDENCE from the trial showed no addiction based on what was in mjs house or system. as already said but ill re state as some like to ignore the facts because of their agenda to call mj an addict. the sleeping meds that had been prescribed by metzger and murray had been under used based on the intake recommended on the bottles. so no evidence at all that mj was addicted to either demoral or the benzos based on the facts shown during the trial and the info that is available now.
I wanted to stay on the sidelines of this discussion, but I want to intervene now. I see too many words like "addict", "addicts", "abuse" and even "junkies" passing through this forums and I do think that we as a community has some blind spots when it comes to this topic. As a matter of fact at some point it even became forbidden to discuss this topic. Which is unfortunate, for it is an important topic and one that has been a) neglected by the fanebase, b) the complexity of this issue has been ignored by the fanbase (as a matter of fact the arguments used are ridden with stereotypes and prejudices about dependecies and addictions) and c) the complexity of addiction or dependency in general, has been completly rended impossible for the perfect picture *we* would like to have of Michael Jackson. (And yes, we should hold a mirror to ourselves here.)
For one, when you speak of "addicts" we seem to think on people hanging in the corner of the streets, while this is in fact - as many people know who deal with people with dependencies - a small percentage of all people who are depended on (prescription) drugs. There are also, what we consider, to use this layman's term, "functional addicts"; people who can function fine with drugs - even years and decades (and yes, even with Morphine) - without summizing to it. They are an artist in hiding it (no pun intended), even to their loved ones. Their use will increase however when the external pressures increase.
Secondly, dependency on drugs is partly based, as research has shown, on specific personality traits and also an inclination of dependency. Now we can all argue that MJ was not *on* drugs in 2009. But the fact is, that he was depended on drugs, quite heavily, in 1993 and as some court footage shows, in 2004/2005 re. copyrights. This personality trait doesn't dissapear overnight. As a matter of fact external pressure, as research also has shown, increases the use of drugs. This could explain the weight loss, the lack of sleep and missing rehearsals - these are text book signs of relapses.
Now I know that some of you will say, that he underused his prescribed tablets. What you forget to mention however is that the sedavites were more and less likely used through IV. Now I can tell you, that this makes benzo's a) more powerful (which makes the tables useless) and b) harder to find in the body due to the way liquid forms (which are btw more addictive and heightens dependency than tablets) distribute itself throughout the body. Therefore the underuse of tablets can actually point to an increase of IV use and therefore, indirectlty, higher dependency. (Some "junkies", which I don't consider Michael to be, but I do consider him someone with a drug dependency that was in some cases destructive, actually rather have IV drips instead of tablets.) If you can't fall asleep after many lorazepam and dormicum drips, this indicates mostly an high tolerance. This tolerance does not come overnight, in the same way that the heighten insomnia doesn't come from thin air - these go hand in hand.
Last but not least: what really bugs me about these discussions is that addiction is seen here as a personal fault. It is not. It is a serios disease and the one who suffers from it should be treated as such. His doctors should have helped him with the core of his problem and not the side-effect of his problem (insomnia). I feel that the tendency in these discussions tends to be: "well if Michael was an addict, he has himself to blame." (we also call that "blaming the victim".) Wrong. If you approach dependency as a disorder, his doctors, all of his doctors are too blame. They should have done better research. A person on dependency will, in its very nature, withhold information. Seeking a "new high" through Propofol is actually a natural development in dependency behaviour. Michael is not to blame, even here, CM is. One, for he didn't do (enough) background checks and two for misuse, ignorance and neglect in the use of propofol. In short, and I may be flamed for this, *even if* Michael was dependend on drugs and his history, insomnia, his search for a "high" and escape, the witness accounts that drip in from all sides, all seem to indicate this, he was and never be will responsible for his own death. His death is caused by propofol intoxication, but this by itself does not make Michael *not* depended. There is a huge "gray zone" here, that we neglect throughout our discussions. And I think that this is, because *we* don't want to see Michael depended on drugs. And it is unfortunate that we can't have a mature debate on this matter.
And this brings me to the core of this whole trail. If dependency is a disease and AEG was aware of his dependency, as any good employer, the welfare of their client should be utmost and first. By not doing so, AEG actually shows gross neglect. In this case I truly understand the positions of the *****ns - even though they are being fried by the fanbase. It is their brother and their son, and the people around Michael should have acted. As some tried to do, as emails show.
Ps: before you flame me, I just want to make clear that is my attempt here to open a discussion on dependency, and the many prejudices surrounding dependency, and also holding up a mirror to our *neglect* on this issue in our fanbase. (Why is this topic so sensitive?) Even if Michael was depended, and there are many signs pointing to that direction - and it is very hard to proof physiologically due to the distribution of the drugs after IV use, as is stated in the previous court case - he is and was never responsible for his death. It doesn't make him less human, only more human.
