morningsong said:

A Kim Berry instagram thread turned into a Tiger Woods back surgery thread. Classic.

rdhull said:

NotACleverName said:

laurarichardson said:

NotACleverName said:

I was responding to clover's claim that Tiger Woods ingested copious amounts of pain killers which in turn, affected his speech to the point of slurring (it did not). There was no discussion of Chris Cornell.

--Clover and I were discussing Chris and Tiger. You should take the time to read the conversation. See Chris on stage at his last show totally out of it on stage with multiple drugs in his system that were not even at levels that would have caused him to O.D. yet he is barely making if through this performance and he was a drug user since he was 14. So stop saying tolerance would make it easier for Prince to hide being high. If he was abusing these meds it was going to be noticed. https://www.youtube.com/w...fbGVE8vIs8 [Edited 6/16/17 6:07am]

LR, I'm the one who referenced "tolerance". I think maybe it came across wrong, and I should've worded it differently, because I was not implying that "Prince was hiding being high"- the implication was almost direct opposite. If there was a tolerance gained and IF Prince was "self medicating" in order to alliviate the pain, as opposed to taking something specifically to get high, - due to tolerance- he would appear normal, and probably FEEL normal and not high either. When tolerance occurs, the body gets used to something and therefore needs more to get the same pain relief. Point being that if it only took 1 pill once a day to alliviate his pain, then gained a tolerance- a year down the road, it would take much more to have the same medicinal effect. That said, there are MANY different side effects to each and every prescribed medication. One person may have the side effect of being drowsy, while others may have the euphoric, sense of well being side effect that would not cause anyone to be the wiser of what said person is taking. Tolerance is just that-tolerance. It does not mean that someone is "hiding" being "high". Quite the contrary-if the person has gained a tolerance, in order for that person to alliviate pain and function normally, they may need to take more because of the tolearnce, but as I said they do not appear high just because the required dose is higher.

[Edited 6/16/17 9:38am]

precioux said:

laurarichardson said:

NotACleverName said: --Clover and I were discussing Chris and Tiger. You should take the time to read the conversation. See Chris on stage at his last show totally out of it on stage with multiple drugs in his system that were not even at levels that would have caused him to O.D. yet he is barely making if through this performance and he was a drug user since he was 14. So stop saying tolerance would make it easier for Prince to hide being high. If he was abusing these meds it was going to be noticed. https://www.youtube.com/w...fbGVE8vIs8 [Edited 6/16/17 6:07am]

LR, I'm the one who referenced "tolerance". I think maybe it came across wrong, and I should've worded it differently, because I was not implying that "Prince was hiding being high"- the implication was almost direct opposite. If there was a tolerance gained and IF Prince was "self medicating" in order to alliviate the pain, as opposed to taking something specifically to get high, - due to tolerance- he would appear normal, and probably FEEL normal and not high either. When tolerance occurs, the body gets used to something and therefore needs more to get the same pain relief. Point being that if it only took 1 pill once a day to alliviate his pain, then gained a tolerance- a year down the road, it would take much more to have the same medicinal effect. That said, there are MANY different side effects to each and every prescribed medication. One person may have the side effect of being drowsy, while others may have the euphoric, sense of well being side effect that would not cause anyone to be the wiser of what said person is taking. Tolerance is just that-tolerance. It does not mean that someone is "hiding" being "high". Quite the contrary-if the person has gained a tolerance, in order for that person to alliviate pain and function normally, they may need to take more because of the tolearnce, but as I said they do not appear high just because the required dose is higher.

[Edited 6/16/17 9:38am]

One of my least favourite side effects is when you give a person a sedative and instead of getting drowsy the medication reacts like an amphetamine and the patient ends up bouncing all over the place and getting into stuff all night.

Exhausting for staff...Ugh

LBrent said:

precioux said:

LR, I'm the one who referenced "tolerance". I think maybe it came across wrong, and I should've worded it differently, because I was not implying that "Prince was hiding being high"- the implication was almost direct opposite. If there was a tolerance gained and IF Prince was "self medicating" in order to alliviate the pain, as opposed to taking something specifically to get high, - due to tolerance- he would appear normal, and probably FEEL normal and not high either. When tolerance occurs, the body gets used to something and therefore needs more to get the same pain relief. Point being that if it only took 1 pill once a day to alliviate his pain, then gained a tolerance- a year down the road, it would take much more to have the same medicinal effect. That said, there are MANY different side effects to each and every prescribed medication. One person may have the side effect of being drowsy, while others may have the euphoric, sense of well being side effect that would not cause anyone to be the wiser of what said person is taking. Tolerance is just that-tolerance. It does not mean that someone is "hiding" being "high". Quite the contrary-if the person has gained a tolerance, in order for that person to alliviate pain and function normally, they may need to take more because of the tolearnce, but as I said they do not appear high just because the required dose is higher.

[Edited 6/16/17 9:38am]

One of my least favourite side effects is when you give a person a sedative and instead of getting drowsy the medication reacts like an amphetamine and the patient ends up bouncing all over the place and getting into stuff all night.

Exhausting for staff...Ugh

HELLO!!!

precioux said:

LBrent said:

One of my least favourite side effects is when you give a person a sedative and instead of getting drowsy the medication reacts like an amphetamine and the patient ends up bouncing all over the place and getting into stuff all night.

Exhausting for staff...Ugh

HELLO!!!

Guuurl...and they outlawed 4 point restraints and those seats with the tray attached that keeps these patients from roaming and getting into stuff while staff prays for end of shift to hurry along.

Good times...

precioux said:

laurarichardson said:

NotACleverName said: --Clover and I were discussing Chris and Tiger. You should take the time to read the conversation. See Chris on stage at his last show totally out of it on stage with multiple drugs in his system that were not even at levels that would have caused him to O.D. yet he is barely making if through this performance and he was a drug user since he was 14. So stop saying tolerance would make it easier for Prince to hide being high. If he was abusing these meds it was going to be noticed. https://www.youtube.com/w...fbGVE8vIs8 [Edited 6/16/17 6:07am]

LR, I'm the one who referenced "tolerance". I think maybe it came across wrong, and I should've worded it differently, because I was not implying that "Prince was hiding being high"- the implication was almost direct opposite. If there was a tolerance gained and IF Prince was "self medicating" in order to alliviate the pain, as opposed to taking something specifically to get high, - due to tolerance- he would appear normal, and probably FEEL normal and not high either. When tolerance occurs, the body gets used to something and therefore needs more to get the same pain relief. Point being that if it only took 1 pill once a day to alliviate his pain, then gained a tolerance- a year down the road, it would take much more to have the same medicinal effect. That said, there are MANY different side effects to each and every prescribed medication. One person may have the side effect of being drowsy, while others may have the euphoric, sense of well being side effect that would not cause anyone to be the wiser of what said person is taking. Tolerance is just that-tolerance. It does not mean that someone is "hiding" being "high". Quite the contrary-if the person has gained a tolerance, in order for that person to alliviate pain and function normally, they may need to take more because of the tolearnce, but as I said they do not appear high just because the required dose is higher.

[Edited 6/16/17 9:38am]

No amout of tolerance would eliminate all of the side effects of the pain meds.

I can't understand the people that still think Prince didn't have a problem despite overdosing after his final performance and dying of another overdose seven days later.

Please, please, please do some research on functioning addicts. It's too late for Prince but maybe you'll be able to catch the warning signs with somebody else in your life before tragedy strikes.

_____________

And this is speculation from me but...

Prince was a world-class musician. He rehearsed like a maniac. He was a perfectionist. That's the type of guy who wouldn't be your average addict on stage. He cared too much about the work to let his personal problems bleed over, at least in ways his bandmates or fans could recognize.

He was also a guy who wrecked his body after decades of hard performances. So I can absolutely imagine him flying high on adrenaline from a show, attempting to carry that over into an aftershow and needing some type of landing gear once the adrenaline wore off and the chronic pain crept in.

Regardless of whether this was one continuous problem or an off-and-on problem he struggled with for who knows how long, everything points to it spiraling out of his control near the end.

To deny that is to deny the fact that there was a human being behind the larger-than-life persona he created.

This is BS. It was well known even among fans that Prince was addicted to painkillers. It was openly/unoopenly discussed at Paisley shows.

Strive said:

I can't understand the people that still think Prince didn't have a problem despite overdosing after his final performance and dying of another overdose seven days later.

Please, please, please do some research on functioning addicts. It's too late for Prince but maybe you'll be able to catch the warning signs with somebody else in your life before tragedy strikes.

_____________

And this is speculation from me but...

Prince was a world-class musician. He rehearsed like a maniac. He was a perfectionist. That's the type of guy who wouldn't be your average addict on stage. He cared too much about the work to let his personal problems bleed over, at least in ways his bandmates or fans could recognize.

He was also a guy who wrecked his body after decades of hard performances. So I can absolutely imagine him flying high on adrenaline from a show, attempting to carry that over into an aftershow and needing some type of landing gear once the adrenaline wore off and the chronic pain crept in.

Regardless of whether this was one continuous problem or an off-and-on problem he struggled with for who knows how long, everything points to it spiraling out of his control near the end.

To deny that is to deny the fact that there was a human being behind the larger-than-life persona he created.

this is gut wrenching

fielder said:

rogifan said:

fielder said:

This is BS. It was well known even among fans that Prince was addicted to painkillers. It was openly/unoopenly discussed at Paisley shows.

Really? What is unoopenly? People whispering to each other? Passing notes? [Edited 6/17/17 2:56am]

The unopen part would be ESP.

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said:

fielder said: Really? What is unoopenly? People whispering to each other? Passing notes? [Edited 6/17/17 2:56am]

The unopen part would be ESP.

ESP as in "extra sexy P"?

rdhull said:

Strive said:

I can't understand the people that still think Prince didn't have a problem despite overdosing after his final performance and dying of another overdose seven days later.

Please, please, please do some research on functioning addicts. It's too late for Prince but maybe you'll be able to catch the warning signs with somebody else in your life before tragedy strikes.

_____________

And this is speculation from me but...

Prince was a world-class musician. He rehearsed like a maniac. He was a perfectionist. That's the type of guy who wouldn't be your average addict on stage. He cared too much about the work to let his personal problems bleed over, at least in ways his bandmates or fans could recognize.

He was also a guy who wrecked his body after decades of hard performances. So I can absolutely imagine him flying high on adrenaline from a show, attempting to carry that over into an aftershow and needing some type of landing gear once the adrenaline wore off and the chronic pain crept in.

Regardless of whether this was one continuous problem or an off-and-on problem he struggled with for who knows how long, everything points to it spiraling out of his control near the end.

To deny that is to deny the fact that there was a human being behind the larger-than-life persona he created.

this is gut wrenching

I think we need to learn a huge lesson from all this... to truly seriously appreciate people while they are around, not take them for granted and say what needs to be said. Seems like no one was able to challenge Prince, .. that is a sad postscript. Prince was an outstanding stellar musical genius.. and hard to believe how much he packed into 57 years...

CyndiGR said:

fielder said:

This is BS. It was well known even among fans that Prince was addicted to painkillers. It was openly/unoopenly discussed at Paisley shows.

No. It wasn't well known nor was it openly discussed anywhere at all.

Mintchip said:

I look forward to the day when "addict" is not a despicable label - something that has to be denied and rationalized out of - as opposed to a condition to be acknowledged and dealt with. More empathy, less judgement.

When it hits the white community, then you get that.

rdhull said:

Mintchip said:

I look forward to the day when "addict" is not a despicable label - something that has to be denied and rationalized out of - as opposed to a condition to be acknowledged and dealt with. More empathy, less judgement.

When it hits the white community, then you get that.

? Seriously? You think it hasn't hit the 'white' community? Doesn't matter what color you are, it's hit. Why bring this colored crap into addiction? Addiction doesn't care what color you are.

rdhull said:

Mintchip said:

I look forward to the day when "addict" is not a despicable label - something that has to be denied and rationalized out of - as opposed to a condition to be acknowledged and dealt with. More empathy, less judgement.

When it hits the white community, then you get that.

serioiusly dude? lol

man it hit the 'white' community a long time ago

Now if your mean 'upper class' which it has a long time ago, then that is another thing.

but 'white trash' 'trailer trash' 'poor whites' 'swamp people' etc those 'white' folk are focused on all the time.

OldFriends4Sale said:

rdhull said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

serioiusly dude? lol

man it hit the 'white' community a long time ago

Now if your mean 'upper class' which it has a long time ago, then that is another thing.

but 'white trash' 'trailer trash' 'poor whites' 'swamp people' etc those 'white' folk are focused on all the time.

Duh...Some of you are so pressed on being right about something that it's really ridiculous

well I was finding this more humorous than anything.
But U did put it out there buddy lol

OldFriends4Sale said:

rdhull said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

serioiusly dude? lol

man it hit the 'white' community a long time ago

Now if your mean 'upper class' which it has a long time ago, then that is another thing.

but 'white trash' 'trailer trash' 'poor whites' 'swamp people' etc those 'white' folk are focused on all the time.

Duh...Some of you are so pressed on being right about something that it's really ridiculous

You put the statement out there. Too bad you're wrong.

rdhull said:

Mintchip said:

I look forward to the day when "addict" is not a despicable label - something that has to be denied and rationalized out of - as opposed to a condition to be acknowledged and dealt with. More empathy, less judgement.

When it hits the white community, then you get that.

You are ignorant to think for one second this has not "hit the white community" and a racist for posting your ignorant BS

[Edited 6/19/17 8:19am]

precioux said:

rdhull said:

When it hits the white community, then you get that.

You are ignorant to think for one second this has not "hit the white community" and a racist for posting your ignorant BS

Geezu. I never siad it HASN'T hit the white community. What I said, is typically epidemics etc dont get the empathic stance from the populace at large untilit hits their own. If youve paid attention for the past 30 years, a lot of the drug problems were hugely ignored by the mainstream until it hit the suburbs and other affluent co..ya know what. nevermind. The org is gonna org. god bless it. BTW yeah Im quite the racist

rdhull said:

precioux said:

You are ignorant to think for one second this has not "hit the white community" and a racist for posting your ignorant BS

Geezu. I never siad it HASN'T hit the white community. What I said, is typically epidemics etc dont get the empathic stance from the populace at large untilit hits their own. If youve paid attention for the past 30 years, a lot of the drug problems were hugely ignored by the mainstream until it hit the suburbs and other affluent co..ya know what. nevermind. The org is gonna org. god bless it. BTW yeah Im quite the racist

I agree with your thoughts-but that's NOT what you said. You made a blanket statement. Maybe you should've said what you meant from the get go. Have a nice day

precioux said:

rdhull said:

Geezu. I never siad it HASN'T hit the white community. What I said, is typically epidemics etc dont get the empathic stance from the populace at large untilit hits their own. If youve paid attention for the past 30 years, a lot of the drug problems were hugely ignored by the mainstream until it hit the suburbs and other affluent co..ya know what. nevermind. The org is gonna org. god bless it. BTW yeah Im quite the racist

I agree with your thoughts-but that's NOT what you said. You made a blanket statement. Maybe you should've said what you meant from the get go. Have a nice day

If you have to be spoon fed then you have a day too..good or bad doesnt matter lol.