celebrities i could give a hoot about. folks were overjoyed here to see Paris hilton get picked up and dragged off to the slammer for a second time. they don't contribute much to society the way artists do with the irrelevant lives they lead. to say artists get off more lenient is a generalization. they threw the book at Robert Downey Jr after several legal breaks to get clean. there are other examples too. I think artists contribute to society with the work they do and don't feel we should hold them up as role models...they're artists, prone to the disease like the rest of us could be. I just can't get judgemental about the issue. Drug use and the art culture have gone hand in hand forever!! I didn't feel like running out and scoring some LSD because I heard Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds when I was a kid. I think youth is smarter than they are giving them credit for. The now notorious pictures of Amy and Blake all scratched up is not going to get kids into H. There was nothing glamorous about that!!
This whole thing smacks of politicians and their careers. And, don't get me started with Mother Superior Natalie Cole. Her comments went over well with her peers, didn' they?!! We have the Iran Contra scandal here in the US to look back on, with the CIA involved with the Contras and their cocaine trafficking. How many of those loosers got off with a presidential pardon. Talk about leniency!
LEAVE AMY ALONE I say!!
Do celeb drug-takers get off too lightly?
Started by
Guest_blakmamba76_*
, Mar 05 2008 04:58 PM
102 replies to this topic
#18
Tara
-
- Members
-
- 1,410 posts
This Bird Has Flown...
Posted 06 March 2008 - 07:13 PM
I don't think celebs do get special treatment re drugs offences. In the same UN report, they contradicted themselves totally by saying governments should go after the big cartels and not obsess so much about addicts and smalltime dealers. Well, Amy, Pete et al are users, not gangsters.
Personally I think it is prohibition that has created this worldwide tragedy, where criminals control drugs. In South America and Afghanistan, people are enslaved by these gangs while in the west, we have no-go areas where whole generations are ravaged by addiction. If it was legalised then governments could control it and make it taxable. I don't know if it's too late now to reverse the mistake.
I'm impatient with this whole idea of celebs being role models. I love Amy but I have no wish to be her and live her life. When I was growing up, I adored Marilyn Monroe, Billie Holiday, Marvin Gaye, Frida Kahlo and Madonna. But it was their art that inspired me, not their lifestyle. I think we should give youngsters more credit, the majority know their boundaries. Those who don't, probably aren't interested in what Amy gets up to anyway.
Yesterday when I read the Sun's story about Amy and the cigarette, I was so upset. Yes she is rich and famous, but she is just a young woman trying to live her life. They treat her like a cash cow, she has no privacy. So in terms of the media, I think some celebrities are being scapegoated, not spoiled.
Personally I think it is prohibition that has created this worldwide tragedy, where criminals control drugs. In South America and Afghanistan, people are enslaved by these gangs while in the west, we have no-go areas where whole generations are ravaged by addiction. If it was legalised then governments could control it and make it taxable. I don't know if it's too late now to reverse the mistake.
I'm impatient with this whole idea of celebs being role models. I love Amy but I have no wish to be her and live her life. When I was growing up, I adored Marilyn Monroe, Billie Holiday, Marvin Gaye, Frida Kahlo and Madonna. But it was their art that inspired me, not their lifestyle. I think we should give youngsters more credit, the majority know their boundaries. Those who don't, probably aren't interested in what Amy gets up to anyway.
Yesterday when I read the Sun's story about Amy and the cigarette, I was so upset. Yes she is rich and famous, but she is just a young woman trying to live her life. They treat her like a cash cow, she has no privacy. So in terms of the media, I think some celebrities are being scapegoated, not spoiled.
#20
Guest_blakmamba76_*
Guest_blakmamba76_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 March 2008 - 08:29 PM
I saw this today:
Tighter drug trial laws promised
Ministers have promised to tighten laws requiring drug firms to disclose data from clinical trials.
It comes after the drugs regulator announced GlaxoSmithKline would not face criminal proceedings over claims it withheld information on Seroxat.
But they warned GSK should have been quicker to raise the alarm on the risk of suicidal behaviour associated with the antidepressant in the under-18s.
GSK has rejected claims it improperly withheld drug-trial information.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) received data from clinical trials in May 2003 showing that patients under 18 had a higher risk of suicidal behaviour if they were treated with Seroxat than if they received a placebo.
We will take immediate steps to ensure the law is strengthened further, so that there can be no doubt as to companies' obligations to report safety issues
Professor Kent Woods, MHRA
Data also showed that Seroxat was not effective for treating depression in children and adolescents.
The drug was subsequently banned for use in under 18s.
'Responsibility'
But Professor Kent Woods, MHRA chief executive said they were disappointed GSK had not given them information earlier and that drugs firms had an "ethical responsibility".
"I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did.
"All companies have a responsibility to patients, and should report any adverse data signals to us as soon as they discover them.
"This investigation has revealed important weaknesses in the drug safety legislation in force at the time."
He said subsequent legislation has partially addressed the problem but more still needed to be done.
The MHRA spent four years looking at over one million pages of evidence to determine whether GSK had withheld information.
They concluded there was no realistic prospect of a conviction as legislation in place at the time was not sufficient to require companies to inform the regulator of safety information when the drug was being used for, or tested outside its licensed indications.
In common with many drugs, Seroxat was never licensed for the under 18s, but doctors could still prescribe it.
A BBC Panorama investigation last year reported that secret e-mails showed the drug company distorted trial results, covering up a link with suicide in teenagers.
The internal documents suggested GSK knew there was a problem with the effectiveness of Seroxat in children five years before the drug was banned.
Health minister Dawn Primarolo said the government would take immediate steps to secure a strengthening of the law in the UK and Europe.
She also said they wanted to make it clear to all pharmaceutical companies that, "notwithstanding the limitations that may exist in the law, they should disclose any information they have that would have a bearing on the protection of health".
Dr Alastair Benbow, medical director for GSK Europe said: "We firmly believe we acted properly and responsibly in first carrying out this important clinical trials programme and then informing the regulatory agencies when we identified a potential increased risk of suicidal thinking and behaviour in patients under 18.
"GSK is committed to working with the government, appropriate regulatory authorities and other pharmaceutical companies to take whatever action is necessary to improve legislation and policy in this area."
Andrew McCulloch, chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation said it was "totally unacceptable" to hear that young people may have taken their own lives due to a lack of transparency by a pharmaceutical company.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7280798.stm
Published: 2008/03/06 11:11:47 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Tighter drug trial laws promised
Ministers have promised to tighten laws requiring drug firms to disclose data from clinical trials.
It comes after the drugs regulator announced GlaxoSmithKline would not face criminal proceedings over claims it withheld information on Seroxat.
But they warned GSK should have been quicker to raise the alarm on the risk of suicidal behaviour associated with the antidepressant in the under-18s.
GSK has rejected claims it improperly withheld drug-trial information.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) received data from clinical trials in May 2003 showing that patients under 18 had a higher risk of suicidal behaviour if they were treated with Seroxat than if they received a placebo.
We will take immediate steps to ensure the law is strengthened further, so that there can be no doubt as to companies' obligations to report safety issues
Professor Kent Woods, MHRA
Data also showed that Seroxat was not effective for treating depression in children and adolescents.
The drug was subsequently banned for use in under 18s.
'Responsibility'
But Professor Kent Woods, MHRA chief executive said they were disappointed GSK had not given them information earlier and that drugs firms had an "ethical responsibility".
"I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did.
"All companies have a responsibility to patients, and should report any adverse data signals to us as soon as they discover them.
"This investigation has revealed important weaknesses in the drug safety legislation in force at the time."
He said subsequent legislation has partially addressed the problem but more still needed to be done.
The MHRA spent four years looking at over one million pages of evidence to determine whether GSK had withheld information.
They concluded there was no realistic prospect of a conviction as legislation in place at the time was not sufficient to require companies to inform the regulator of safety information when the drug was being used for, or tested outside its licensed indications.
In common with many drugs, Seroxat was never licensed for the under 18s, but doctors could still prescribe it.
A BBC Panorama investigation last year reported that secret e-mails showed the drug company distorted trial results, covering up a link with suicide in teenagers.
The internal documents suggested GSK knew there was a problem with the effectiveness of Seroxat in children five years before the drug was banned.
Health minister Dawn Primarolo said the government would take immediate steps to secure a strengthening of the law in the UK and Europe.
She also said they wanted to make it clear to all pharmaceutical companies that, "notwithstanding the limitations that may exist in the law, they should disclose any information they have that would have a bearing on the protection of health".
Dr Alastair Benbow, medical director for GSK Europe said: "We firmly believe we acted properly and responsibly in first carrying out this important clinical trials programme and then informing the regulatory agencies when we identified a potential increased risk of suicidal thinking and behaviour in patients under 18.
"GSK is committed to working with the government, appropriate regulatory authorities and other pharmaceutical companies to take whatever action is necessary to improve legislation and policy in this area."
Andrew McCulloch, chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation said it was "totally unacceptable" to hear that young people may have taken their own lives due to a lack of transparency by a pharmaceutical company.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7280798.stm
Published: 2008/03/06 11:11:47 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
#21
pearljo
-
- Members
-
- 7,242 posts
♪♫♫ vaginal bleeding
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:05 PM
Don't get me started on psych drugs and the pharm companies. They are the highest profit industry in America and have(at least) hundreds of lobbyists in Washington. They will resort to anything to get docs to write scripts for their products. They are scum. Unfortunately, I have to depend on them to treat my bipolar.
I take four different prescriptions--approximately 3000 pills a year. I just bought a bigger daily pill carrier today. : )
Do I share too much here? lol
I take four different prescriptions--approximately 3000 pills a year. I just bought a bigger daily pill carrier today. : )
Do I share too much here? lol
#22
kevd7
-
- Members
-
- 6,158 posts
Soaked in soul he swims in my eyes
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:17 PM
guess you know the makers of OxyContin got sued up the yin yang for "misleading and defrauding" the public with their fake claims that the drug was less addictive etc. I agree with you. Drug companies are greedy mothers
#23
pearljo
-
- Members
-
- 7,242 posts
♪♫♫ vaginal bleeding
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:31 PM
I used to take Zyprexa which is an anti-psychotic. I'm not psychotic but it's one of the drugs used to treat bipolar. It took Prozac's place as Lilly's best seller when the patent ran out on Prozac.
Seems Lilly reps were vastly understating the weight gain potential of the drug which many people have reported 100+ pounds a year. They also skimmed over the fact that Zyprexa can cause diabetes whether you gain weight or not.
I'm sure there's a class action suit against Lilly.
I've belonged to a mental health forum for 10 years. I could write books on the crap I've seen.
Seems Lilly reps were vastly understating the weight gain potential of the drug which many people have reported 100+ pounds a year. They also skimmed over the fact that Zyprexa can cause diabetes whether you gain weight or not.
I'm sure there's a class action suit against Lilly.
I've belonged to a mental health forum for 10 years. I could write books on the crap I've seen.
#24
kevd7
-
- Members
-
- 6,158 posts
Soaked in soul he swims in my eyes
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:37 PM
i know someone with bipolar who took a cocktail as well, and she gained so much weight it was hard to keep her on the medication because of it. Abilify is another they downplay the weight gain, but what an offender that drug is!! I understand Paxil packs on the pounds too.
#25
lexiconman
-
- Members
-
- 22 posts
infrequent poster
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:39 PM
i was SHOCKED the first time i tried cocaine. doing a gram or less is WAY less disruptive than adderall, which has MORE abuse potential bc it's stronger, cheaper, safer, & more covert. where with coke you have to put more up your nose, which starts to hurt when it's too much, with scrips you can just take an extra pill or four.
psycho-pharm experiences are totally relevant, because they throw the hypocrisy of the war on drugs into relief. i have pretty awful ADD symptoms -- like, i can't read or sequence tasks at all without wellbutrin & if i want to make sure i do something right i have to take adderall. it sometimes takes me 3 hours to get ready for bed.
adderall is a designer amphetamine engineered to maximize efficiency & minimize side effects (so at low doses the speed euphoria is not too distracting). it's more effective than coffee, longer lasting & less dangerous for the heart than cocaine, etc. & we routinely give it to children & tell them they can't do anything without it. plus, most of their street-drug-ignorant parents have no idea how to arrange life stably around lack of appetite, stomach pain, irritability, paranoia, insomnia... ex, http://news.bbc.co.u...ws/7090011.stm.
so how exactly is giving kids, adolescents, & the rest of us drugs stronger, more manipulative, & more pervasive than cocaine, marijuana, etc, a defensible position? no dealer i've ever met would sell coke to a 6-10 year old.
& personally i think antidepressants & mood stabilizers are even more of an ethical problem simply bc there's nothing else like them. there's no way to make an informed decision until you're already taking the drug daily. we consider dependency the basis of addicts' inabilities to make good decisions ...
psycho-pharm experiences are totally relevant, because they throw the hypocrisy of the war on drugs into relief. i have pretty awful ADD symptoms -- like, i can't read or sequence tasks at all without wellbutrin & if i want to make sure i do something right i have to take adderall. it sometimes takes me 3 hours to get ready for bed.
adderall is a designer amphetamine engineered to maximize efficiency & minimize side effects (so at low doses the speed euphoria is not too distracting). it's more effective than coffee, longer lasting & less dangerous for the heart than cocaine, etc. & we routinely give it to children & tell them they can't do anything without it. plus, most of their street-drug-ignorant parents have no idea how to arrange life stably around lack of appetite, stomach pain, irritability, paranoia, insomnia... ex, http://news.bbc.co.u...ws/7090011.stm.
so how exactly is giving kids, adolescents, & the rest of us drugs stronger, more manipulative, & more pervasive than cocaine, marijuana, etc, a defensible position? no dealer i've ever met would sell coke to a 6-10 year old.
& personally i think antidepressants & mood stabilizers are even more of an ethical problem simply bc there's nothing else like them. there's no way to make an informed decision until you're already taking the drug daily. we consider dependency the basis of addicts' inabilities to make good decisions ...
#28
pearljo
-
- Members
-
- 7,242 posts
♪♫♫ vaginal bleeding
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:46 PM
I understand Paxil packs on the pounds too.
Really, almost every psych drug makes you gain weight. they slow down your metabolism and make you crave carbs. I've known people that would exercise their ass off and couldn't lose the weight. It's one of the more frustrating side effects, right up there with sexual dysfunction.
Everyone that's been on these meds for a while knows they are guinea pigs.
#29
kevd7
-
- Members
-
- 6,158 posts
Soaked in soul he swims in my eyes
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:50 PM
great posts!! the thing with antidepressants is they usually take 4-6 weeks to kick in, some are energizing while others are sedating and you really don't know which of the myriad side effects you'll encounter until your on them for a while.
#30
lexiconman
-
- Members
-
- 22 posts
infrequent poster
Posted 06 March 2008 - 10:03 PM
i think they screw up your metabolism more generally. wellbutrin made me lose weight (dangerously as i was already too thin) bc it suppresses my appetite all day every day. but others i know gained weight on the same dose.
word to pearljo:
word to pearljo:
Everyone that's been on these meds for a while knows they are guinea pigs.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
