All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Re: Elvis and drugs

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:26 am

sid wrote:I knew you had a heart Doc :wink:

What's not to like? You can always trust the doc.

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:32 am

E-Cat wrote:
Elvis' Babe wrote:fact--most hospital-strength pain-killers aren't much better or equal to heroin and every other illegal painkiller. morphine is a form of heroin.


no, no, no - not true - Heroine is a Schedule I Narcotic Drug while Morphine is a Schedule II (III) Narcotic Drug. There is really a big difference...



More accurate, heroin is a form of morphine. You basically obtain morphine from opium, and then more or less you mix it with vinegar (not true, but anyway, is morphine acetate). Morphine is still used for patients with severe pain. Heroin is banned.

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:34 am

E-Cat wrote:
Elvis' Babe wrote:fact--most hospital-strength pain-killers aren't much better or equal to heroin and every other illegal painkiller. morphine is a form of heroin.


no, no, no - not true - Heroine is a Schedule I Narcotic Drug while Morphine is a Schedule II (III) Narcotic Drug. There is really a big difference...


Morphine (INN) (IPA: [ˈmɔ(ɹ)fin]) is an highly potent opiate analgesic drug and is the principal active agent in opium and the prototypical opiate. Like other opioids, e.g. Diamorphine (heroin), morphine acts directly on the central nervous system (CNS) to relieve pain, and at synapses of the nucleus accumbens in particular. Morphine is highly addictive when compared to other substances, and tolerance and physical and psychological dependences develop relatively quickly. Patients on morphine often report insomnia, visual hallucinations and nightmares.


Morphine was the most commonly abused narcotic analgesic in the world up until heroin was synthesized and came into use. Even today, morphine is one of the most sought after prescription narcotics by heroin addicts when heroin is scarce.


i should have phrased it as 'heroin, opium and morphine are in the same family'...just some are more legal than others, but how potent or dangerous they are isn't as far off as one would think.

Re: Elvis and drugs

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:42 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
sid wrote:I knew you had a heart Doc :wink:

What's not to like? You can always trust the doc.
:)

Re: Elvis and drugs

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:50 pm

Jth wrote:
changeofhabit wrote:As we know, almost everybody good ol' rock'n roll artist used drugs. Real drugs or legal drugs like Elvis mostly(?) used.


Just for the record; Elvis never ever used real drugs as he despised them - he only took prescription drugs


According to Priscilla Presley, they also tried LSD. Not strictly a legal drug, not in Sweden anyway.

//Björn

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:25 pm

Here it is :D
Only kidding...

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:15 pm

E-Cat wrote:
Elvis' Babe wrote: fact--most hospital-strength pain-killers aren't much better or equal to heroin and every other illegal painkiller. morphine is a form of heroin.


no, no, no - not true - Heroine is a Schedule I Narcotic Drug while Morphine is a Schedule II (III) Narcotic Drug. There is really a big difference...


Elvis' Babe wrote:Morphine (INN) (IPA: [ˈmɔ(ɹ)fin]) is an highly potent opiate analgesic drug and is the principal active agent in opium and the prototypical opiate. Like other opioids, e.g. Diamorphine (heroin), morphine acts directly on the central nervous system (CNS) to relieve pain, and at synapses of the nucleus accumbens in particular. Morphine is highly addictive when compared to other substances, and tolerance and physical and psychological dependences develop relatively quickly. Patients on morphine often report insomnia, visual hallucinations and nightmares.


Though off topic, let me try to clarify why there are essential differences between opium and morphine from a medical perspective:

First of all I very much doubt if the above definition is copied from a trusted medical source: yes, Diamorphine acts directly on CNS - like morphine. However the definition forgets to mention that Diamorphine is also more addictive and very difficult to use in a controled medical environment (Hospital), with risk of overdose. That's why diamorphine and schedule I narcotics are not available upon prescription in the USA. The UK & Australia are two of the very few countries where diamorphine is available upon prescription. However, because of the high number of fatalities after using diamorphine, there are numerous debates worldwide to ban the use of Diamorphine completely.

The point I am trying to make is, is that though heroin is made from morphine, there are still big differences from a medical point of view..

Elvis' Babe wrote:Morphine was the most commonly abused narcotic analgesic in the world up until heroin was synthesized and came into use. Even today, morphine is one of the most sought after prescription narcotics by heroin addicts when heroin is scarce.

From a subjective point of view most addicts will be happy to use morphine, but from an objective perspective this hardly confirms that they the same.

Elvis' Babe wrote: i should have phrased it as 'heroin, opium and morphine are in the same family'...just some are more legal than others, but how potent or dangerous they are isn't as far off as one would think.


The reason why Heroin is a Schedule 1 Narcotic drug and why Morphine is listed a schedule 2 Narcotic drug is because heroin - as a street drug derivitive- is much more dangerous than morphine (even prescribed heroin - is more addictive than morphine). It's mostly watered down and cut with chemical substances like strychnine or fentanyl. Since drug abusers have no clue about the strenght of this chemical interaction, they are therefore highly at risk of overdose or death. Studies have suggested that most people who use heroin eventually overdose and die.

As stated in the beginning - even prescribed heroin like Diamorphine is more dangerous than the use of traditional morphine analgesics.

Since there are some serious differences between morphine and heroin, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have assigned both narcotics in different categories:

1) Schedule I. -- (incl. heroin, Marijuana and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). No Schedule I drug can legally be possessed or used for any purpose)
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

(2) Schedule II. -- (incl. cocaine, morphine and opium). These are all drugs that have a high potential for abuse
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
etc...

Source: 2005 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration


If morphine and heroin were really that similar, they would have been listed in the same category.

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:43 pm

Spanish_Eyes wrote:I recall one of the autopsy coroners stating: "Butter did worse to him than all the pills he was taking". So basically, drugs weren't that important into Elvis untimely demise, because he was tolerant to them back then.


I'm sorry... WHAT?

Re: Elvis and drugs

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:13 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
changeofhabit wrote:So, nobody in the media or on the "street" talks about another people using drugs but always about Elvis.

Here on planet Earth, virtually every famous rock artist or band has had warranted -- or unwarranted -- media exposure regarding drug use or lack thereof.


Indeed.

We have further confirmation of that today.

On his 33rd birthday, Robbie Williams has been admitted to rehab for a dependency on prescription drugs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6356551.stm

To put things into perspective: Let's remember that Elvis had yet to give his Comeback Special at this time. Good luck, Robbie!

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:40 pm

Yeah Good Luck Robbie..


What that Guy needs is a good Woman to look after him.

That girl who did the dirty on him in the Paper on Sunday has done him a favour really and I hope he gets the help he needs before he is another Young Star lost to us through Prescription Drugs.

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:02 pm

It's not the first time he's suffered an addiction (as that article states).

His arrogance on stage is clearly playful and just an act. He suffers from quite severe depression in private. Yet he clearly puts his real self on stage -- you can see the emotion welling up in him during certain performances of certain songs. All in all, this is very sad, and in spite of what I might have said in the negative before, I have come to like Robbie a lot. I hope he gets better.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:25 am

elvis-fan wrote:
Spanish_Eyes wrote:I recall one of the autopsy coroners stating: "Butter did worse to him than all the pills he was taking". So basically, drugs weren't that important into Elvis untimely demise, because he was tolerant to them back then.


I'm sorry... WHAT?


That the actual problems within Elvis body were due to his bad eating habits more than his drug intake.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:54 am

It is true that many celebrities have gotten attention for drug abuse but Elvis seems to be the only entertainer where it is positioned as the central fact in his life. Remember the dispute about the stamp? In 1987 on the tenth anniversary Bob Greene wrote a column about how we would do well to remember that Elvis was a drug addict, different only from the junkies in the street because he had greater access to drugs. I remember in the '80s it would be the first thing brought up, a national punchline. What I said then and say now is that drugs were a footnote in Elvis' overall story. What was important, the changes he wrought in music and culture were the important parts of the story. I'm sad he did drugs and they helped to damage the enjoyment he had in his later life and shortened his life.

I think Marko's comments about the saintly image pushed by Parker (not by Elvis who often tried to distance himself) had a big part in the way the drug charges dominated public opinion about Elvis. I'm not blaming Parker here because of the fact that in the 1950s there was so much controversy about Elvis that any publicly admitted vice could have toppled his house of cards. I also think there's a little media vengeance in there as well. Unlike virtually every other celebrity in the 20th century, Elvis did a whale of a job keeping his private life private. Also, for those who never liked Elvis the drug abuse became an easy tool for dismissal. Plus, for many fans and media the story of the great star silenced by addiction was an easier cliche' to wrap your mind around than Elvis' actual story. People love the entire of the simple little martyr sacrificed on the altar of success.

The hidden part of this story is the absolute fascistic view about drug abuse presented in the United States' unsuccessful war on drugs. Drug abuse has been absolutely demonized in the US for the past 20 odd years and the revelations about Elvis' abuse came right at the head of this trend. Particularly, in the 1980s there was a very judgemental view in the public mind about drug abuse and many quarters of America it's still not seen as an illness. In the minds of these automatons an endorsement of Elvis Presley is an endorsement of drugs. The reputation of performers like Hendrix suffer less because he has a large group of defenders who actually indulged in the drug culture in the 1960s and therefore take a less demonistic view. Plus, there's the out of sight, out of mind factor as those deaths though only a short time before Elvis' were a little long in the tooth by the mid-80s. This is why no thought to raise issues of substance abuse when kids were taught Edgar Allan Poe in school.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:26 am

What I can't stand is how Elvis' drug abuse and weight is used as a knock against him, that he was an ignorant, pill-poppin,' peanut butter & banana sandwhich eatin' redneck, whilst the 60's icons (Lennon, Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin) don't get the same knocks for their abuse. The latter 3 died from their addictions, Morrison got fat before he died, Lennon was damn near as skinny as a scarecrow before his tragic death, Joplin's weight fluctuated. Yet their physical condition is rarely mentioned and then usually only in passing, certainly not as a knock against them. But they're hailed as geniuses despite their addictions/physical shortcomings. But not Elvis, he's the national punchline because a fat a$$ redneck galoot can't be a genius now can he?

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:07 am

Pete Dube wrote:What I can't stand is how Elvis' drug abuse and weight is used as a knock against him, that he was an ignorant, pill-poppin,' peanut butter & banana sandwhich eatin' redneck, whilst the 60's icons (Lennon, Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin) don't get the same knocks for their abuse ... their physical condition is rarely mentioned ... But they're hailed as geniuses despite their addictions/physical shortcomings. But not Elvis ...

C'mon Pete, you need to take a step back. The only people who claim such cliches as fact are morons like the gossip-peddlers of TV and print media.

First of all, the drug angle on Elvis is pretty played out in 2007. Time has healed a lot of wounds, it was a LOT worse circa 1977-1982.

The reason the subject of drug abuse made such headlines was because Elvis had such a "clean" reputation nearly his entire career, while the others grew up in the permissive drug culture of the 1960s. With Elvis, you were shocked. And it sold newspapers.

Elvis' weight and general appearance are often criticized because he was perhaps the best-looking singer of the 20th century. The man was GORGEOUS almost all the time. You cannot say that about any of the others you mention. So, when he lost his beauty because of illness and addiction, it was shocking. And it sold newspapers.

And if you think the past ten years alone have not found Elvis held in high esteem by critics, musicians, and those who really dig music and popular culture, you are fooling yourself.

I hope this helps, because it's the truth!

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:18 am

Guess this is one issue that will never go away.

You are right Doc. The legacy Presley has left on popular culture, and music in general definitley overshadows all of the other crap some people can't help but to bring up time and time again!

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:19 am

thefunkyangel wrote:I need 'em man :roll:!


Words from right from the wise Sonny West :lol:

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:37 am

Bike, Doc, great responses!

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:59 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:C'mon Pete, you need to take a step back. The only people who claim such cliches as fact are morons like the gossip-peddlers of TV and print media.


Mostly agree. You still run into a cheap shot now & again from the odd critic or music journalist.

drjohncarpenter wrote:First of all, the drug angle on Elvis is pretty played out in 2007. Time has healed a lot of wounds, it was a LOT worse circa 1977-1982.


True, true. Those days were hell for us.

drjohncarpenter wrote:The reason the subject of drug abuse made such headlines was because Elvis had such a "clean" reputation nearly his entire career, while the others grew up in the permissive drug culture of the 1960s. With Elvis, you were shocked. And it sold newspapers.


Yeah, I know. That point occured to me after I wrote my post.

drjohncarpenter wrote:Elvis' weight and general appearance are often criticized because he was perhaps the best-looking singer of the 20th century. The man was GORGEOUS almost all the time. You cannot say that about any of the others you mention. So, when he lost his beauty because of illness and addiction, it was shocking. And it sold newspapers.


Bullseye!

drjohncarpenter wrote:And if you think the past ten years alone have not found Elvis held in high esteem by critics, musicians, and those who really dig music and popular culture, you are fooling yourself.

I hope this helps, because it's the truth!


As I recall, the upswing started in '87. And yes the last 10 years have been great, particularly the last 5. Doc, I guess I'm still a bit touchy about the drug/weight business. The man was, and remains, my hero. Warts and all.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:06 am

Pete Dube wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:And if you think the past ten years alone have not found Elvis held in high esteem by critics, musicians, and those who really dig music and popular culture, you are fooling yourself.

I hope this helps, because it's the truth!


As I recall, the upswing started in '87. And yes the last 10 years have been great, particularly the last 5. Doc, I guess I'm still a bit touchy about the drug/weight business. The man was, and remains, my hero. Warts and all.


I feel as you do Pete. I dare say a lot of us who were around full force for the viciousness that were the eighties, still remain touchy about our guy to this day.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:21 am

The "fat Elvis" stereotype is still around. It's been tempered by the excellent scholarship of Guralnick and others but it's still a factor.

Pete- Another big reason for the fat, Elvis drugs is Elvis in Concert. That cemented the overweight caricature in the public consciousness. You mention Joplin's weight fluctuating or that Morrison was overweight when he died, but how many people saw them with those extra pounds? An entire nation saw Elvis.

Dr. Carpenter's point about the diminuition of beauty is also important. To fall from beauty is almost an unforfgivable sin in our culture particularly to lose beauty to weight. When Orson Welles died in 1985, he was known to the vast majority of the public for being an overweight wine pitchman rather than being the director of the common consent greatest film of all time. When Marlon Brando died two and a half years ago, he was as known for his weight and weirdness as his genius. If you would have said to a young person in 2003 that Marlon Brando was the greatest actor who ever lived, they'd have thought you were crazy. I remember the public ridicule growing up that Liz Taylor endured for her fluctuation in weight.

I place the upswing in Elvis' rep starting in 1992 with King of Rock N' Roll boxed set and in 1994 with Guralnick's first volume. In general the tone was much, much more respectful in 2002 than in 1987 and 1997.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:45 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:What I can't stand is how Elvis' drug abuse and weight is used as a knock against him, that he was an ignorant, pill-poppin,' peanut butter & banana sandwhich eatin' redneck, whilst the 60's icons (Lennon, Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin) don't get the same knocks for their abuse ... their physical condition is rarely mentioned ... But they're hailed as geniuses despite their addictions/physical shortcomings. But not Elvis ...

C'mon Pete, you need to take a step back. The only people who claim such cliches as fact are morons like the gossip-peddlers of TV and print media.

First of all, the drug angle on Elvis is pretty played out in 2007. Time has healed a lot of wounds, it was a LOT worse circa 1977-1982.

The reason the subject of drug abuse made such headlines was because Elvis had such a "clean" reputation nearly his entire career, while the others grew up in the permissive drug culture of the 1960s. With Elvis, you were shocked. And it sold newspapers.

Elvis' weight and general appearance are often criticized because he was perhaps the best-looking singer of the 20th century. The man was GORGEOUS almost all the time. You cannot say that about any of the others you mention. So, when he lost his beauty because of illness and addiction, it was shocking. And it sold newspapers.

And if you think the past ten years alone have not found Elvis held in high esteem by critics, musicians, and those who really dig music and popular culture, you are fooling yourself.

I hope this helps, because it's the truth!

Doc, well said.

As LTB mentions, Elvis In Concert did a tremendous amount of damage and the footage still does.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:14 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:What I can't stand is how Elvis' drug abuse and weight is used as a knock against him, that he was an ignorant, pill-poppin,' peanut butter & banana sandwhich eatin' redneck, whilst the 60's icons (Lennon, Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin) don't get the same knocks for their abuse ... their physical condition is rarely mentioned ... But they're hailed as geniuses despite their addictions/physical shortcomings. But not Elvis ...

C'mon Pete, you need to take a step back. The only people who claim such cliches as fact are morons like the gossip-peddlers of TV and print media.

First of all, the drug angle on Elvis is pretty played out in 2007. Time has healed a lot of wounds, it was a LOT worse circa 1977-1982.

The reason the subject of drug abuse made such headlines was because Elvis had such a "clean" reputation nearly his entire career, while the others grew up in the permissive drug culture of the 1960s. With Elvis, you were shocked. And it sold newspapers.

Elvis' weight and general appearance are often criticized because he was perhaps the best-looking singer of the 20th century. The man was GORGEOUS almost all the time. You cannot say that about any of the others you mention. So, when he lost his beauty because of illness and addiction, it was shocking. And it sold newspapers.

And if you think the past ten years alone have not found Elvis held in high esteem by critics, musicians, and those who really dig music and popular culture, you are fooling yourself.

I hope this helps, because it's the truth!


I agree with this and I would also add the fact that I already pointed out earlier. The cover-up for the true cause of his death gave a lot of people a reason to make the drug thing even bigger issue than it already was. People just love conspiracy theories (JFK, Marilyn, UFO's, 9/11 etc).

Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:17 am

likethebike wrote:The "fat Elvis" stereotype is still around. It's been tempered by the excellent scholarship of Guralnick and others but it's still a factor.

Pete- Another big reason for the fat, Elvis drugs is Elvis in Concert. That cemented the overweight caricature in the public consciousness. You mention Joplin's weight fluctuating or that Morrison was overweight when he died, but how many people saw them with those extra pounds? An entire nation saw Elvis.

Dr. Carpenter's point about the diminuition of beauty is also important. To fall from beauty is almost an unforfgivable sin in our culture particularly to lose beauty to weight. When Orson Welles died in 1985, he was known to the vast majority of the public for being an overweight wine pitchman rather than being the director of the common consent greatest film of all time. When Marlon Brando died two and a half years ago, he was as known for his weight and weirdness as his genius. If you would have said to a young person in 2003 that Marlon Brando was the greatest actor who ever lived, they'd have thought you were crazy. I remember the public ridicule growing up that Liz Taylor endured for her fluctuation in weight.

I place the upswing in Elvis' rep starting in 1992 with King of Rock N' Roll boxed set and in 1994 with Guralnick's first volume. In general the tone was much, much more respectful in 2002 than in 1987 and 1997.


Jim Morrison and The Doors did a PBS tv-performance in 1969 (which is available on dvd) in which Morrison appeared bloated but I do agree with your comments above.

Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:33 am

Marko wrote:
likethebike wrote:The "fat Elvis" stereotype is still around. It's been tempered by the excellent scholarship of Guralnick and others but it's still a factor.

Pete- Another big reason for the fat, Elvis drugs is Elvis in Concert. That cemented the overweight caricature in the public consciousness. You mention Joplin's weight fluctuating or that Morrison was overweight when he died, but how many people saw them with those extra pounds? An entire nation saw Elvis.

Dr. Carpenter's point about the diminuition of beauty is also important. To fall from beauty is almost an unforfgivable sin in our culture particularly to lose beauty to weight. When Orson Welles died in 1985, he was known to the vast majority of the public for being an overweight wine pitchman rather than being the director of the common consent greatest film of all time. When Marlon Brando died two and a half years ago, he was as known for his weight and weirdness as his genius. If you would have said to a young person in 2003 that Marlon Brando was the greatest actor who ever lived, they'd have thought you were crazy. I remember the public ridicule growing up that Liz Taylor endured for her fluctuation in weight.

I place the upswing in Elvis' rep starting in 1992 with King of Rock N' Roll boxed set and in 1994 with Guralnick's first volume. In general the tone was much, much more respectful in 2002 than in 1987 and 1997.


Jim Morrison and The Doors did a PBS tv-performance in 1969 (which is available on dvd) in which Morrison appeared bloated but I do agree with your comments above.

The comparison does not quite work. Elvis Presley was one of the world's biggest superstars. The Morrison legend grew to massive heights after his death, much more so than when he was alive. Morrison was a talented writer and performer and The Doors were a popular band, but seeing him in full beard on PBS (which by the way is a fantastic Doors set) was not the same as millions tuning in to watch the CBS Special shortly after Elvis' death.