No illegal drugs in Amy Winehouse.

[Karis]

The key word here is 'illegal'. It's been carefully chosen by the Police / press and it's very interesting.

 

We may never know the truth, but I would imagine the truth is, like Michael Jackson, that she was awash with 'prescribed' medication.

[Conrod]

Link here. Alcohol present but unknown if it contributed to her death.

 

Might make those who come on here and mouth off about junkies and the like as they crack open another can of Stella think twice next time.

And anybody who claims drugs and drug culture were not responsible for her demise might reconsider while they're puffing on / snorting / injecting their next fix.

[bladesufc1]

Tests have shown that there were no illigal drugs in Amy's body.

The cause of her death is still unknown.

 

they haven't said if there was legal drugs inside her!

[Jessica23]

And anybody who claims drugs and drug culture were not responsible for her demise might reconsider while they're puffing on / snorting / injecting their next fix.

 

Did people claim that?

 

I remember a lot of uninformed nastiness of the topic of addiction that mostly focused on what a 'dirty junkie' she was, as FatDave so eloquently put it.

 

My point is just that people who tend to get on their high horse about illegal drugs are quite frequently those who are quite happy to drown themselves in strong lager on a regular basis. Alcohol causes a massive amount of damage, but somehow escapes the 'dirty junkie' stigma because it's legal and more socially acceptable.

[ANGELFIRE1]

It also seems to attract people who choose to insult other posters rather than discuss a topic.

 

Not everybody feels sympathy for people like Winehouse; she had life on a plate and squandered it all.

Just because some people don't think killing yourself with drugs, booze and a destructive lifestyle is a clever thing to do is no justification for calling them morons or idiots.

 

 

 

I concur. This alcohol, drug loving individual had it all, and simply threw it all away. I have sympathy for those who have some incurable disease, not a pampered millionaire with a body destroyed by self induced drugs and alcohol.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

[Jessica23]

I concur. This alcohol, drug loving individual had it all, and simply threw it all away. I have sympathy for those who have some incurable disease, not a pampered millionaire with a body destroyed by self induced drugs and alcohol.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

 

So you might want to alter your opinion on Winehouse with the knowledge that the American Medical Association 'endorses the proposition that drug dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases and that their treatment is a legitimate part of medical practice', then.

[Conrod]

. Alcohol causes a massive amount of damage, but somehow escapes the 'dirty junkie' stigma because it's legal and more socially acceptable.

So it is - can't you see that makes all the difference?

 

There are plenty of things we can all do legally which can damage us. My knees are a bit dodgy from playing rugby 25 years ago. One ankle is a bit ropey from a climbing fall and one from a motorcycle accident, my nose has been broken several times, my thumbs, arms, and I have countless little scars from various sports and hobbies over the years – all damaging, but all legal.

 

I also drink, and at times in the past have had one too many - but I wasn't breaking the law. The whole point is that a line must be drawn somewhere on what is, and what is not, legal. Those who choose to cross that line are taking a big step, and in the case of illegal drug use it's a step into a seedy, degenerate world. Maybe Winehouse was a bit simple-minded and easily led by the pond life she chose to associate with, but she still made her own decisions as she squandered such huge talent and opportunity.

[Conrod]

So you might want to alter your opinion on Winehouse with the knowledge that the American Medical Association 'endorses the proposition that drug dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases and that their treatment is a legitimate part of medical practice', then.

Calling them diseases is just liberal-headed fluffiness making excuses for weak people's failings.

[Phanerothyme]

So it is - can't you see that makes all the difference?

 

There are plenty of things we can all do legally which can damage us. My knees are a bit dodgy from playing rugby 25 years ago. One ankle is a bit ropey from a climbing fall and one from a motorcycle accident, my nose has been broken several times, my thumbs, arms, and I have countless little scars from various sports and hobbies over the years – all damaging, but all legal.

 

I also drink, and at times in the past have had one too many - but I wasn't breaking the law. The whole point is that a line must be drawn somewhere on what is, and what is not, legal.

 

In the case of substances (rather than behaviour), where and why must this line be drawn?

[Conrod]

In the case of substances (rather than behaviour), where and why must this line be drawn?

Ask the Home Secretary for the details, I just agree we need a line.

 

If we allow people to fill their veins with, say, heroin, why do we bother to force people to use seatbelts? Or safety goggles at work? Should it just be their own choice to mess themselves up?