derrick31 said:

teach49 said:

Well, in Chaz's defense, he didn't state that P was addicted in this last interview. He said that family reached out to help him. It's pretty clear that if addiction wasn't the major problem, then there was another problem. Either way he needed help. Also, P's cousin might make a distinction between addiction and dependency resulting from the treatment of pain.

In the end, we only know the exact cause of death. We don't know anything else.

Dr. D claims Prince was taking these opioids since the 80's and not for pain. I know some people don't put much stock in his claims, but he was the first one to identify Prince was using fentanyl and that was on April 23rd. Sad to say, but Prince may have been a drug addict. Also, you may not need to know anything else, but others may. [Edited 8/15/16 18:17pm]

I don't know what to make of the drug dealer's claims. Kinda like Jose Canseco...he's sleazy but he was telling the truth. Could be the case here. Or not.

I didn't speak to my need to know anything. I merely stated that we only know the exact cause of death and nothing else, and that Chaz's recent comments don't shed any light at all, except to acknowledge there was something wrong, which is obvious at this point. He was pretty vague.

I do think it's best to keep known facts and speculation separate. It's easy to conflate the two, but it never helps. I mean, speculation is fine -- I'm certainly not above it -- but it save a whole lot of trouble to always remember which is which.

[Edited 8/15/16 18:30pm]

nursev said:

Mkilpatrick74 said:

sunset3121 said:

sunset3121 said:

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said:

sunset3121 said:

Honestly there aren't that many people speculating. Outside of fans this isn't even a story on people's minds. They've moved on. That's why I feel all this stuff should remain private. No need for it to be front and center in the news again.

This is true. Most people have accepted the rock star drug addict story and moved on.

Mumio said:

laurarichardson said:

derrick31 said:

Like someone mentioned before, if the media wants to know something, then there's no stopping them, they will go to any means to get what they want, and they usually succeed. They will keep digging until they find what they want to know, because they know that there is always someone that they can bribe to talk. The more you try to hide things, the harder they try to find out what you're hiding.

nursev said:

Well as folks know I give two fucks about this lady or Larry, but obviously for this judge to unseal this thing there is some significant info that is in this divorce case that may help this investigation. Why would a judge unseal a divorce case otherwise?

But how is the ST going to help the investigation? They filed for the docs to be unsealed. Why would the investigators wait for the ST to sue to unseal docs for investigative purposes?

teach49 said:

nursev said:

not to mention this divorce case is damn near 10 years old so there has to be some significant info in the paperwork.

I think they at least believe it's significant or they wouldn't hire a lawyer to represent them. Now, it may not turn out to actually BE significant, but they think it might be.

I've followed one journalist while he investigated a missing person's case. He filed for the release of documents in several ways. My sense is that it wasn't a matter of whether the officials agreed with him that the info was significant. The issue was whether he had a legal right to the information as a journalist according to current laws for anyone (FOIA) or as a journalist. If the ST is in their legal right, then they will get what they want. But, I can say that often the information gotten is underwhelming. In that case, this journalist I followed just moved on to the next thing, much of it barely getting a mention in his articles and/or book.

[Edited 8/15/16 19:07pm]

1contessa said:

rogifan said:

rogifan said:

teach49 said:

This is true. Most people have accepted the rock star drug addict story and moved on.

Outside of that one story in the Daily Fail next to no one has reported this as anything other than pain management gone wrong. That's how Dr. Drew framed it on CNN and HLN. The people that choose to believe P was just your typical rock star junkie certainly aren't fans and probably wouldn't believe anything else anyway. Screw 'em.

True. Not talking about major fans but your average person. They hear overdose and that's that.

derrick31 said:

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said:

ufoclub said:

Wannabeyourlover1 said:

I read on another site that one of two things may be in those documents..... Either Manuela's bad behavior towards Prince, OR, that she divorced Prince because he was addicted to drugs. And that is why she is saying if the documents are released that the public will harass her. And if you guys remember what she posted on FB after their divorce, saying something to the effect that she hopes Prince wouldn't wind up on TV like Charlie Sheen. ( remember Charlies outburst about his drug addiction). After much critisism, Manuela took the post down. So, I am hoping they keep the dirt sealed. But, doesn't look that way.

Charlie Sheen was(is?) also a sex addict, so the reason for the divorce could be something else entirely.

Exactly. She could have been referencing his infidelity.

silentdaisy said:

silentdaisy said:

I know you all don't know me - I've been a lurker for a long time loving all the P talk but until now I haven't had enough expertise in anything to comment. I've been a critical care nurse for the last 15 years - so I know quite a bit about pain meds. None of us knows for sure what health issues P had - and he was such a meticulously private man I think that's how he wanted it. The man chose to go on Oprah pretending everything was fine after his son died - so it seems that he'd go to great lengths to show a strong face. Fentanyl patches are a totally normal doctor-prescribed treatment for chronic pain. They would NEVER be prescribed for mild or short-term pain. A patient would have to be no longer getting pain relief from any other source in order to have these. For that reason I have to conclude that P did have chronic pain issues and had been treated for that for a long time. Anyone who's been on pain medication therapy for a very long time would never appear impaired in any way.

Thank you for this. It helps to get information like this from people who know about pain management.

I tend to agree with you, but I'm no expert by any means.

Mkilpatrick74 said:

DollyDagger said:

ufoclub said:

Charlie Sheen was(is?) also a sex addict, so the reason for the divorce could be something else entirely.

Exactly. She could have been referencing his infidelity.

This would not be something earth shattering. Sex addict? Who cares? She turned around a married a man who went into Sex Rehab.

silentdaisy said:

DollyDagger said:

ufoclub said:

Charlie Sheen was(is?) also a sex addict, so the reason for the divorce could be something else entirely.

Exactly. She could have been referencing his infidelity.

Neither drug use or infidelity would be mentioned in an uncontested, no-fault divorce.

In fact, even in my sister's case -- a contested divorce with children -- there was little salacious detail in the divorce file. Judges don't like you going after each other like that. It was only if one of the parents was putting the children's lives in danger (by abuse or neglect) that you'd want to bring that forth, but that relates to custody issues.

Oh, or did you mean Mani's comment about Charlie Sheen? I make no assumption about that one. She could have even been talking about his conspiracy theories...

[Edited 8/15/16 19:04pm]

[Edited 8/15/16 19:09pm]

Plenty of people take fentanyl and were not prescribed it. It's pretty widely available on the black market.

We have no idea what Prince was prescribed, or when or why he was taking the fentanyl that killed him. But -- IT DOESN'T MATTER. We really need to stop this moral judgment around addiction. It's disheartening to me to continue to read this kind of thing here. Addiction is an epidemic in this country and I feel anyone dealing with it, no matter the what drove them to start taking whatever they're taking, is suffering (mentally, physically, emotionally) and deserves our compassion. Period.

NinaB said:

silentdaisy said:

I know you all don't know me - I've been a lurker for a long time loving all the P talk but until now I haven't had enough expertise in anything to comment. I've been a critical care nurse for the last 15 years - so I know quite a bit about pain meds. None of us knows for sure what health issues P had - and he was such a meticulously private man I think that's how he wanted it. The man chose to go on Oprah pretending everything was fine after his son died - so it seems that he'd go to great lengths to show a strong face. Fentanyl patches are a totally normal doctor-prescribed treatment for chronic pain. They would NEVER be prescribed for mild or short-term pain. A patient would have to be no longer getting pain relief from any other source in order to have these. For that reason I have to conclude that P did have chronic pain issues and had been treated for that for a long time. Anyone who's been on pain medication therapy for a very long time would never appear impaired in any way.

Thank you. And would you consider it appropriate to label a person going through that a 'drug addict' ?