Get this, some people who use drugs or have an addiction at some point (MJ DID have one in '93), the drugs don't always end up in the system. Look at Andy Gibb, he did cocaine and alcohol but in his autopsy none of that shit was found. Rick James did cocaine like crazy but only traces of it were found in his body. Elvis kept popping pills every night and there were pills in MJ's system. And this revelation doesn't even damage MJ's legacy so like Jay said focus on his legacy rather than the media's miscontrue of people's WORDS so you can draw your own conclusions because that's not right.

lowkey said:

But that doesn't mean he was a drug addict. Propofol and related anesthetics were the only drugs found in his system and they aren't addictive! The autopsy clearly showed that there were no other drugs in his system and that there were no traces of past/present drug addiction.

"propofol in order to sleep at nite THAT IS AN ADDICTION". "THEY WERE BOTTOM LINE HE DIED FROM A DRUG OVERDOSE. "

Michael had really serious insomnia problems. He probably thought that Propofol was the most efficient drug to make him sleep. We all know he had no contact with reality and, therefore, didn't know/think about the drug's dangerousness. Still, the drug isn't addictive, can only be used ONCE a day and stays on one's system for 3/4 minutes. This drug, combined with others, doesn't make one an addict.

"i knew something wasnt right with him and i never met him in my life"
Something wasn't right since the day he was born, don't you think?

"step out of the lil fantasy world mj tried so hard to create and deal with reality."
This argument is usually used when one doesn't have anything to say at all or/and when one runs out of arguments. I'm expecting you to use "arguments" like "You think Michael is God", "Michael was a human", "Stop worshipping MJ" or "MJ cant have faults, right?" against me.

I'm defending the man. That doesn't mean I think he is a God or that I live in his fantady world. I'M JUST DEFENDING HIM USING FACTS. If anyone dares to defend this man, that "anyone" will immediately be labelled a "MJ worshipper".

MOL said:

how do you know they not addictive? if he needed them to sleep he was addicted. we found out he has been using this stuff for years, he had a anestheciologist on tour with him (wtf),look its obvious you dont wanna hear that mj was indeed addicted to this drug, thats fine and i understand that right now those mj fanatics are mad at the world so you all wanna find anyplace to lay the blame other than at his feet.im not gonna respond to this subject no more.

@ how this thread has turned...
[Edited 11/20/09 13:48pm]

lowkey said:

Propofol is not addictive, in and of itself. It gives you a quickly onset sleep. If you get too much you stop breathing and suffocate to death.
[Edited 11/20/09 13:56pm]

Timmy84 said:

An addicted person would inject propofol more than, in average, 10 times. However, Michael just wanted to sleep since he had an insomnia problem so I highly doubt he would be injected more than once.

What I and alot of people don't get is, if he was that much of a drug addict,why was the family always badgering him for reunions and money?

Why was MJ the one to get all the drama from them?

mookie said:

If he was such a drug addict then why did his family continue hounding/harassing him for money and reunion tours? Why were they always scheduling meetings to talk about that reunion tour? Why would they want to perform with a junkie? Why, instead of seeking help, did they continue pressuring Michael to perform with them? If he was so frail, then why was his family hounding him to perform with them?

Most of them saw Michael for the first time in years on the 14th of May.

The family's definition of an intervention: "Michael, open the door so that we can pressure you and make your life a living hell so that you will give us money.".

Michael used to give money personally to Katherine. Why, while receiving the money, didn't they mention the drug addiction (if he was such a junkie!)? They had his phone number! They had full access to him! If they had access to him to persuade him to perform with them, why didn't they talk about the drug problem? So...they had complete access to him to pressure him to perform with them, but did not have access to him to convince Michael to stop doing drugs? How strange, isn't it?
[Edited 11/20/09 14:11pm]

ViintageJunkiie said:

I wonder how true that really is. I remember in some interview, she said she hadn't seen (and maybe even spoken) to him in 2 years but she knew how he was because he kept in touch with their mother.

I think in the Rabbi's tape, he said their hearts were connected or whatever, but they weren't really in contact that much.

And in regards to the Propofol story, there are people with chronic insomnia who've tried "everything" and nothing seems to work. And that's not because they are some hardcore drug addicts (unless they aren't admitting it). I just read the comments that came with the huffpost someone posted and some were telling their stories. I even have a friend with severe sleep problems who's not a drug addict to my knowledge. I'm not justifying what Michael chose to do to get "some sleep" but many of us thankfully do not know what it means to be a chronic insomniac so we can't really jump into conclusions.

And I'm not burying my head into the sand about Michael's problems but it all depends on what these interventions were about. If he solved those specific problems then there's no need rehashing the issue. It's like say a formerly obese person dies of alcohol poisoning and all his friends keep going on and on about how they'd tried to get him to do gastric bypass/diet/exercise or whatever, even though the person had already lost the weight and died of the overindulgence of something else. I think this is why fans defend him because he didn't die from demerol or oxycontin or whatever many of his 'friends' were talking about but from something else. Yes, it's still a drug but I doubt he would have gone to these lengths if he could have fallen asleep using safer methods.

Besides, the fans and many papparazzis just saw one person in front of Michael's gates! Guess who? Joe Jackson! What was he doing? Yelling that he was broke and that it was Michael's fault. Yelling that he should hire Leonard Rowe and that he, Rowe, should have full access to Michael's finances. Yelling that he had made Michael and, therefore, should receive a percentage of This Is It.
[Edited 11/20/09 14:16pm]

i found this article on the web:
http://www.anesthesiology...le_id=7579

from the article: "in his experience, Dr. Manejwala said, nearly every propofol addict started injecting to overcome persistent insomnia."

so it could be that
a) propofol has been known as a substance that can be used for insomnia
b) propofol can become addictive for some.


was mj addicted to propofol? it seems that he was first administered it for his insomnia in 1997 during his tour.

did he continue to use it over the course of the next 12 years? i don't know. did he become addicted during the six weeks murray was with him? according to murray, he thought mj was becoming addicted, but i'm not thoroughly convinced i should believe murray.

does it matter if he was addicted to propofol or anything else? for me, not that much.

the crux of this case is not so much that murray administered the drug. it's that he didn't really try to help mj after seeing him in distress. based on some of the info that has come out, it appears that murray administered too high a dosage, and instead of getting mj to a hospital right away, he tried to save his own butt.

according to what's come out, murray wasn't licensed to be practicing medicine in ca. and didn't have the right certification to procure the drugs in the first place. he thought if he waited long enough for the propofol to be distributed thru mj's body, it wouldn't be detected, mj could be declared dead and few people would be the wiser without a special autopsy.

i think murray had a legit reason for administering the propofol. mj's insomnia is a legit reason even if was administered unorthodoxly outside of a hospital. (a dentist who murray and mj know, admits he administers the drug to his patients for some procedures; i presume he's doing it in his office). so if there was a legit reason for him to have administered the drug, then why not tell the ucla doctors?

as i've said before, murray is really in trouble not so much for what he did, but for what he didn't do, i think.
[Edited 11/20/09 14:47pm]

Timmy84 said:

MOL said:

how do you know they didnt talk to him about the drugs? and are you sure they had access to him? wasnt it stated that he wouldnt return their calls or even open the door if they came by. can you really convince an addicted person to stop? didnt other people close to michael thats not family say how he would cut you off if you tried to confront him about anything? michael's money is really not the business of his fans and you really dont know what went on behind the scenes with his family.far as touring or whatever, what do that have to do with his addiction, there are probably more musicians and artists addicted to drugs then not. janet told oprah there was a time she didnt talk to him in a couple years, she also said it wasnt because she didnt reach out, he just didnt return her calls...maybe janet was bitchin at him about what was goin on. lastly i never heard nobody in his family call him a junkie or even a drug addict, plese stop with the dramatics.

Timmy84 said:

This is the most logical thing I've read yet on the subject of MJ and addiction....

MJ is/was a GREAT world changing artist...And his drug issues does not affect that...He will always be the greatest entertainer who ever walked the earth...

EXACTLY.

mj himself admitted he had a problem with pills in '94, and later complained in some deposition his doctors prescribing the wrong pills or whatever. no one is disputing that.

but mj didn't die of the drugs all his friends and family keep going on about. he died from a propofol overdose. no one knows whether mj was addicted to propofol, only that he died of a lethal injection of it. unless i learn differently, i'm not going to say he was addicted to propofol, but say instead that he may have been addicted to painkillers, either at the time of his death or earlier, and that that particular addiction had nothing to do with murray failing to administer aid in a timely manner to him.

Timmy84 said:

I agree with you , I think some just don't want to imagine little michael being in the same Category as the people you mention.It doesn't change my opinion of him at all , if it changes anybody else's fine more unrelease stuff for me the better lol.

Timmy84 said:

well, maybe that's because in andy's case the use wasn't recent at the time of his death. according to wiki, he died of a viral infection, but his brothers thought that he was susceptible to the infection b/c his heart had been weakened by *past* drug use.

in james' case, there were drugs found in his system, but the coroner stated that none of them were the cause of his death. that could be the case with mj. i think what people are protesting is the seeming desire to see murray 'get off' b/c mj did drugs, even though murray gave him too much propofal and didn't try to save his life.

babybugz said:

To claim Michael is in the same category as them is simply ridiculous.

lowkey said:

I know that because they kept pressuring him. Remember Tito claiming, 6 months ago, that he hoped Michael would let them perform with him in the O2 arena? Why did they keep pressuring him to perform with them if Michael was such a frail, addicted man? Don't you think it's strange?

I don't blame Michael for not answering calls. Read Margaret Maldonaldo's book and you will realize that Katherine, Joe and Michael's brothers are monsters.

Michael wasn't addicted and I've proved that to you. Yet, you still say he was an addict who refused to see his family.

Many people like Dr. Ionache and Raymone Bay (who is suing Michael) claimed that he was NOT a drug addict.
[Edited 11/20/09 15:14pm]

MOL said:

Well how would you know , I can only go by what janet said etc.What is the big deal if michael had drug problems do your feelings on him change or something. The man was not perfect and he had a hard life why is it such a crime if he was .SMH

babybugz said:

But to claim he is in the same category is a bit unfair, don't you think?

To claim that MJ, a person whose autopsy clearly showed that there were no traces of drug addiction and whose body/organs were in perfect conditions (mainly the liver who would accuse drug addiction if MJ was a junkie) is in the same category as known junkies is a bit harsh. But that's my opinion.

MOL said:

I said same category because the people he mention had problems with drugs so what's unfair about that since things point in the direction that michael may have had a problem with that. It doesn't make him a bad person and I personally don't care at the end of the day I like to focus on his art instead of wondering what members of the jacksons try to pressure him to do reunions etc who cares .

babybugz said:

To claim that MJ, a person whose autopsy clearly showed that there were no traces of drug addiction and whose body/organs were in perfect conditions (mainly the liver who would accuse drug addiction if MJ was a junkie) is in the same category as known junkies is a bit harsh. But that's my opinion.

MOL said:

I'm going by what his sister said so if you have a problem with it go find janet Address and tell her how you feel .

babybugz said:

Well, you go by what a person who has only seen Michael once in 3 years said. I go by what the autopsy report said.

MOL said:

too funny I swear you in too deep
[Edited 11/20/09 15:50pm]

babybugz said:

but what exactly did janet say besides the family tried to help and she felt he was in denial, people are acting like the drugs issue just came up after janet did this interview when it was all over the news 5 minutes after he died.we all heard about the addiction, we all heard about the family trying to do an intervention but its like some fans are just reaching at the opportunity to blame janet for somehow doing damage to her brother, it really makes no sense.the funny thing about all this is its only these die hard michael fanatics thats goin on about this, everywhere else janet has gotten positive responses about the interview and suprisingly most people are not even focusing on the michael comments. im hearing people talk about her self esteem issues more that her feelin he was in denial because the average person already knew this.