Advertisements
I admit it -- I'm having a huge problem the past couple days reading posts on these forums that adulate Michael Jackson. I'm having trouble reading posts written by people I've followed the past several years here...parents who don't hesitate to tear into any biological mother who uses drugs, who is the victim of domestic violence, who is impoverished. It's making me sick to my stomach, to tell you the truth.
I guess it's okay to be a drug addict, someone who has been charged with child molestation, but not convicted. It's okay to dangle your infant over a balcony, as long as you're a pop-music legend. Why isn't that same gold standard applied to biological parents who have lost their children to CPS and foster care? A lot of parents lose their children to the system and are never convicted of any crime. Why should it be different just because you have the big bucks, the fame?
People seem all so eager to point out that Michael Jackson was found "not guilty" in his child molestation trial. They say that since he was found "not guilty", then he must not have done anything. Well, a lot of parents who lose their kids to CPS are never found guilty of anything either.
Child molestation aside, Michael Jackson was a known narcotics addicts for a very long time. He first entered the Betty Ford Center at the urging of Elizabeth Taylor in the 1990's for opiate addiction. People have known for so long now that he was an addict, but I guess it's okay to be an addicted parent as long as you have money and fame.
You know, I don't hold any grudge against Michael -- his music has a special place in my heart and memories. When I first started dating my son's father in 1969, the Jackson Five had just released "ABC"...when I sat in Juvenile Hall the following summer because I refused to quit seeing my son's father, the number one hit on the radio was "I'll Be There"...it played all throughout the day on the radio in the dayroom. I was happy when he revived his career in 1979 with "Off the Wall", and I danced more than I care to recall to "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" at the bars.
But I don't understand the hypocrisy. You know, Michael Jackson was never charged or convicted of being a drug addict, and yet we all know that he was one. And I don't understand the hypocrisy about where his children should end up. So many people here on the forums are saying that his mother, Catherine, should raise them. And yet, isn't Catherine the one who turned a blind eye to Michael's and LaToya's abuse in childhood...the woman who wouldn't leave her man? How many threads have I read that villianize women who don't leave the men who beat the crap out of them? I've read posts by the same people who are now singing Michael's praises say that women who don't leave their abusive husbands deserve to lose their children. I've also read in recent days how Debbie Rowe, the mother of Michael's two oldest kids, should never, ever get custody...mainly because she took Michael's money to give up her custodial rights. But I haven't seen it questioned one time that Michael bought those rights. I guess it's okay to buy kids, but it's not okay to sell them.
Will the hypocrisy ever stop?
Like
Share
CRAZY_WOMAN
Or he could have been a good dad,that took to many sleeping pills some times or had a lot of percipsion drugs,But atleast he had nannies there.Where some parents get high in front of their kids,With nobody to watch them.I do think that if it was so bad that someone should have turned it in,Maybe he would still be alive.
Advertisements
bromanchik
A stoned parent is an absent parent. Nannies do not parent, nor should they. They follow the parenting style and practices of the parents. If he was stoned all the time he certainly wasn't parenting a whole lot. Nannies are not a substitute for a parent, ever.
Also, addiction is addiction, no matter what you are addicted to. Just because something is prescribed does not make it better than say, crack or heroin.
CRAZY_WOMAN
I never heard of him being stoned all the time and parenting.Also some parent might get high once in a while and have someone take care of their kids sometimes while they get high, I really see nothing wrong with that and don't think that makes them a bad parent,Unless they do it all day and everyday and the children's needs aren't being met.
CRAZY_WOMAN
Also some parent might get high once in a while and have someone take care of their kids sometimes while they get high, I really see nothing wrong with that and don't think that makes them a bad parent
An opiate-based drug is a narcotic, no matter whether it is prescribed by a physician or if it is bought from a dealer on the streets. If given a choice, many heroin addicts would rather use oxycontin and fentanyl, both prescription drugs.Michael Jackson was first treated for his addiction to narcotics (opiate-based painkillers) in the 1990s at the Betty Ford Center. His good friend Liz Tayler tried repeatedly over the years to intervene with his drug addiction...so did several of his close friends (who he became estranged from in later years). It's hard for people who are in long-term recovery from substance abuse of any kind (whether it was "prescribed" or not) to watch our loved ones refuse to grab onto the lifeline that is extended to them. A true friend does not enable you to obtain your drug of choice, a true friend doesn't look the other way as you swallow your drug of choice or jam it into your veins, especially when everyone around you can see that's it's killing you.It is not alright...ever...for a parent to justify his or her drug addiction on the basis that a nanny has been hired to take care of the kids. Having a lot of money shouldn't make a difference in how others view you as a parent. An addict is an addict is an addict, just as a drug is a drug is a drug. A weathy parent who is a drug addict should be treated no differently than a poor parent who is a drug addict.
Advertisements
I should have perhaps said 'the recreational use of drugs'...
Because as you put so wonderfully Raven, prescribed drugs can just as easily be abused...I would still guess that's illegal?
I've got personal experiance with someone who 'just smokes a little pot, how bad is that really?' and I have huge huge problems with everything surrounding that.
Quantum - From what I've observed in the past ten years or so, abuse and/or addiction to prescription drugs has far surpassed addiction to "street drugs" like heroin and even crystal methamphetamine. You would be astounded if you knew the "street" price for prescription drugs, especially the opiate-based narcotics.Yes, there is a definite need for narcotics in the field of chronic-pain management -- of that I have no doubt, in fact I have personal experience with it (although I choose to put off the use of narcotics for myself -- I cannot say with certainty that I won't change my mind in the next few years, as my pain levels have been skyrocketing thru the roof lately.)There is a very real possibility that Michael Jackson first started out on narcotics after catching on fire while making the Pepsi commercial in the early '80s. He very well may have had a medical need for pain-management medications at the time. I remember the rumors floating around L.A. back then. Personally, I have no clue whether he tried other forms of pain management techniques, like self-hypnosis, biofeedback, visual imagery. I do know that painkillers work the fastest; the other methods involve self-discipline, training, and time. From my own experience following extensive, multiple spinal surgeries both in childhood and adulthood, I know that narcotics give you a "rush", a feeling of total euphoria. That's why so many adult survivors of child abuse end up as drug addicts. The drugs make you feel better, they make you feel like you belong, they make the pain go away...hence the name, painkillers.All I know is as of today, five physicians in the state of California are under investigation with regards to Michael Jackson's abuse of prescription drugs. Someone is going to take a fall over his death...that much is plain as day. It seems to me like the media and most of the general population is treating Michael as if he never grew up, as if he were still a child who wasn't capable of making his own decisions. Perhaps that was one of the major problems all along as far as Michael goes...
Considering the life he led from a quite small child, it's no surprise that he 'never grew up'.
It is frustrating though, I have been following this thread, and I feel the same way about how money and talent can buy you out of a multitude of sins, if it had been a 'normal' person (as in not a superstar) we wouldn't be having this conversation, there would be no doubts as to 'right and wrong'.
RavenSong
Quantum -
All I know is as of today, five physicians in the state of California are under investigation with regards to Michael Jackson's abuse of prescription drugs. Someone is going to take a fall over his death...that much is plain as day. It seems to me like the media and most of the general population is treating Michael as if he never grew up, as if he were still a child who wasn't capable of making his own decisions. Perhaps that was one of the major problems all along as far as Michael goes...
Advertisements
TxMom65
I heard on the news last night that he had in his possession a drug that is used for anesthesia. Rumor, I don't know.
quantum
It is frustrating though, I have been following this thread, and I feel the same way about how money and talent can buy you out of a multitude of sins, if it had been a 'normal' person (as in not a superstar) we wouldn't be having this conversation, there would be no doubts as to 'right and wrong'.
I think if you take the "Michael Jackson" out of it and just described someone as a man that is a single parent to three small children, hosts sleepovers for other kids in the neighborhood - like in his room/bed, and is addicted to prescription pain medication, but only REALLY gets high when the kids are safe with another caregiver.......well, the foster parents on this board might think there was a new placement coming there way! I mean, this person could be the kind of guy that would work his case, get his kids back, etc., but I have no doubt that if he were an average joe, he'd have had a visit by CPS by now....
thanksgivingmom
I think if you take the "Michael Jackson" out of it and just described someone as a man that is a single parent to three small children, hosts sleepovers for other kids in the neighborhood - like in his room/bed, and is addicted to prescription pain medication, but only REALLY gets high when the kids are safe with another caregiver.......well, the foster parents on this board might think there was a new placement coming there way!
I mean, this person could be the kind of guy that would work his case, get his kids back, etc., but I have no doubt that if he were an average joe, he'd have had a visit by CPS by now....
Advertisements
RavenSong
Yep, the drug in question is normally used intravenously in the OR as an adjunct to anesthesia. I think it's also used in some ritzy detox centers that offer patients the chance to be knocked out cold while their body is going thru withdrawal. It can be quite a dangerous drug...
devildogwife
I read that the drug was propofol. Cameron was on it last year (for a very short time) when he was going through his withdrawal nightmare and trying to get off the ventilator. I believe he was the first baby they had ever needed to give it to. It was like a miracle and it really helped him but it was VERY strong and obviously should only be given under the care of a doctor. My goodness that is something you so do NOT take at home. :eek: