Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Only dickheads do drugs!!!!

A drug raddled grim reaper is on the loose in celebrityland.
Aussie film star Heath Ledger has now died from a suspected drugs overdose.
And he's only 28.
Drugs is also behind the destruction of Britney Spears, as well as some slapper called Amy Winehouse, who seems very big in Britain, though I can't recall any of her songs.
Now, I know this blog attracts those of a liberal bent, who do not see drugs as destructive.
But these cases, involving young people who have achieved much fame and fortune, and have just about everything, a bar a successful song or movie for the past year, just highlight the evilness of drugs.
I must confess to having a few puffs of the evil weed and I once had half an ecstasy tablet about 4-5 years ago.
The weed just sent me to sleep and the ecstasy tablet did too, though I had some interesting dreams from that, I can tell you- one with white rabbits and candles, the other had characters from Coronation Street.
Anyway, drugs are for losers and they wreck your lives.
These celebrities and their deaths and destruction just highlight this.
I know of people whose lives have also been damaged by drugs too.
I know it's a cliche but just say no!


MikeE said...

Pretty silly statement.

This implies that everyone who goes to the pub for a beer is a dickhead.

I'd argue that only dickheads abuse drugs (be they legal or illicit).

Heath ledgers overdose was on pills, which doesn't means it is very unlikely that it was recreational drug use, as most recreational drugs in pill form have a very high lethal dosage.

I'd say it was more likely he ODed deliberately on painkillers or similar.

Not a nice way to go. But its disingenious comparing recreational drug use, to suidcide due to an overdose of what is more likely to be perscription medication.

Ackers said...

FM, best to wait until the full story is known before going off on an anti drugs crusade. It looks like prescription drugs, not recreational

Just incredibly sad I think.

Seamonkey Madness said...


The reports say sleeping pills.

I would agree with your statement that "only dickheads abuse drugs (be they legal or illicit)."

I want to ask you a personal question though, and you definitely don't have to answer it: at what age/sitaution would you give up recreational drugs? (excluding alcohol (let's not get into that argument!))

When I can't afford it?
When it affects my personal relationships?
When it's considered passé?
When I'm burnt out?
When I get bored of it?
When it becomes too illegal(ised)?

MikeE said...


I think its up to the individual. There are some people who shouldn't be anywhere near them in the first place.

And its utterly disingenious to exlude alcahol from any debate regarding drugs - its one of if not THE most harmful drug on the face of the planet.

You can't have a rational discussion on drug abuse without talking about booze.

MikeE said...

Let me add that I believe the safest drug use is none at all.

Barnsley Bill said...

another case of the age old problem of an imbalance between money and brains.

Anonymous said...

All this before the autopsy has been done. What dimwits.

Rick said...

FF is being careful enough with his language here, re Ledger.

However, Mike is right. FF cuts a big line in the sand about what drugs are, a line that is arbitrary. What great physician said 'let thy food by thy medicine?' The distinction between the two here is subjective.

As always, the harm inheres not in the substance but in the user. Individuals are responsible, not chemical compounds.

Richard said...

Seamonkey, you left 'Never' off your list of options. ;-)

MikeE, I agree. :-)

Fairfacts, you are an evil troll.

This looks like a suicide, but let's wait and see.


Maybe I was a bit presumptious over Heath Ledger, but as Rock rightly points out , I did use the word 'suspected.'
With Heath Ledger, the case does seem incredibly sad and tragic. Here was a good looking guy with a successful career, attractive wife, and I'm sure I read he had a child as well.
Just about everything you could possibly want.
Britney Spears and Amy Whitehouse can also look to things to be proud of and happy with. They should not need drugs to make things seem better, or help them cope.
Of course, I have come across some people who have happily lived successful lives while partaking in some illicit substances.
One was a boss of mine who I recall had a bit of weed at a party- well he was of Dutch ancestry and they are quite liberal about things over there.
I guess some commentators here partake in a little and are well capable of handling it themselves.
But for many drugs bring nothing but trouble- and I agree Mike, we can include alcohol. I have seen people damage their lives severely from booze.
Nonetheless, the amount of damage caused by drugs seems to outweigh the benefits. That taking drugs is not a wise thing to do.
After all, Mike says the safest thing is none at all.
Maybe I jumped the gun on Heath ledger. I think his death is a sad waste, though I came across other reports that referred to earl;ier 'substance abuse' by him.
Nonetheless, the others certainly highlight the dangers to people of drugs and in this celebrity ridden culture of ours, seeing Amy WEhitehouse on Tou Tube taking some drug and looking pretty rough and Britney Spears is not looking good at the moment, gets across how evil drugs are as well as , if not better , than any government campaign.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the Britney Spears thing is bad, FF. I told my eight year old to be like Britney ten years ago as she was a shining light of Christian moral virtue with her public abstinence campaign. My daughter is now like Britney, high on drugs, hanging around trailer parks, and showing her coochie to all and sundry. Maybe someone can help me find another Christian role model.

ZenTiger said...

Maybe someone can help me find another Christian role model.

Jesus seems to be popular with some.

KG said...

Seems to me that Rick hit the nail squarely on the head:
"As always, the harm inheres not in the substance but in the user. Individuals are responsible, not chemical compounds."
(disclosure--I've tried a hell of a lot of chemical compounds in my time--now, it's just too much bother. A beer and a cigarette will do just fine)

Tenchinage said...

"They should not need drugs to make things seem better, or help them cope."

"Nonetheless, the others (Britney et al) certainly highlight the dangers to people of drugs.."

So, is the drug abuse the cause of these people's problems, or the symptom?

Correlation does not equal causation. I agree with MikeE.

danyl said...

Amy Winehouse is a genuinely talented gal (she sure didn't get to where she is on her looks).

Even if its not your kind of music you gotta admit that's a hell of a voice.

As for the dangers of drugs, I think they're horribly overstated because you don't hear about the countless people who take 'em when they're young and then give up because they simply don't have the spare time to get wasted. A far more common story but not one that's ever gonna make the news. To quote Bill Hicks:

No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs, I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth- I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day. Sorry. I mean, I've lost my car before, okay. Found it the next day, you know, no biggie. You know, I've lost stuff, I'm not saying that.

dad4justice said...

Hey dozy danyl, aren't the liarbour party just one big pill shop? I mean stoned kids off their faces everywhere I go and one million citizens on anti -depressants .

Give Klark a shake and the rattle would send shock waves that could whip up a sizable tidal wave crashing into Australia .

Psycho Milt said...

Even if its not your kind of music you gotta admit that's a hell of a voice

Absolutely - wouldn't buy any of her albums, but she's certainly got a great voice. She also has (or used to have) a great fuck-you attitude, until recently. The hypocrites in the UK media quacking on about the tragedy of drug abuse might usefully ponder how well they'd cope with being unable to stick their nose out the door without paparazzi firing their flashes at it, and being unable to get pissed without people pontificating over it on the TV. I expect they'd find it just a little stressful. The quality of journo scum in the UK these days is nicely expressed by the paparazzo outside the clinic Winehouse was in, telling the TV camera how he couldn't do his job if he felt compassion for the victim. No doubt muggers operate the same philosophy.

Sean said...

A classic post FFM.

Blair said...

Only users lose drugs.

...wait, did I get that right?