Ozzy Says He Now Believes Pot Leads To Other Addictions

MTV ^ | 07.08.2003 | Robert Mancini, with reporting by Gideon Yago

[presidio9]

Ozzy Osbourne may have weathered the lowest lows that drug addiction has to offer, but the news that his son Jack was seeking treatment for substance abuse taught him a lesson that his own decades of addiction never did.

"I used to think they should legalize pot, but you know what? They should ban the lot," Osbourne told MTV News, addressing Jack's battle for the first time. "One thing leads to another. Coffee leads to Red Bull, Red Bull leads to crank.

"When I found out the full depth of him getting into OxyContin, which is like hillbilly heroin, I was shocked and stunned," Osbourne continued. "The thing that's amazing was how rapidly he went from smoking pot to doing hillbilly heroin."

Ozzy's son entered a California rehabilitation facility in April to battle what was later revealed to be an addiction to the prescription painkiller OxyContin (see "Jack Osbourne Reveals He Was Addicted To Painkiller OxyContin"). Jack also said that he was drinking and using a variety of substances — including Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Dilaudid, Lorcet, Lortab, Percocet and marijuana — before his trip to rehab (see "Rehab Helps Jack Osbourne Get To Root Of Addiction Problems").

Jack's laundry list of controlled substances made his father painfully aware of just how readily available drugs are. "When I started doing drugs years ago, they were hard to get, but today it's everywhere," Osbourne said. "It's not just America. It's not just California. It's not just Beverly Hills. It's not just downtown New York. It's not just London. It's all over the world" (see "All About OxyContin, The Pills Known As 'Killers' ").

This relatively easy access to allegedly "controlled" substances is especially hard for Ozzy to swallow given his firsthand experience with the damage that drugs can do.

"I'm 55 years old, and I didn't get off scot-free," Osbourne explained. "I have to take medication for the rest of my life because I've done so much neurological damage to my body," Osbourne said.

We'll have much more from our interviews with Ozzy and Jack in an "MTV News Now" special report, premiering Tuesday at 11 p.m. ET/PT (Jack's complete interview will appear on MTVNews.com when the show premieres). The show will be followed the next day by a repeat of MTV News' "True Life: I'm Hooked on OxyContin" at 6:30 p.m.

[vin-one]

Because drugs harm not just the user but those around him.

Biggest BS statement I have ever seen

if I am single, live in the woods all by myself, I then would be able to smoke a joint legally?

obviously there is nobody around me. so I can not be harming anyone........but myself

Who owns your body, you or the govt?????
answer this one please...

[eyespysomething]

hmmmm, that sarcasm fits right in in this thread.

[presidio9]

People like you are the reason why I said from the beginning that debating with Libertarians is a waste of time. Your childish political views are a symptom of your utopian view of the world.

[jayef]

Drugs do no such thing. If you can't understand that inanimate objects don't do anything to anybody, perhaps you should contact Sara Brady.

[commonerX]

Oh that's right, I'm sorry I forgot the "just because" reasoning. LOL

[eyespysomething]

h ah ah ah ah aha ha hahahahahahahahaha

[toothless]

People like you are the reason why I said from the beginning that debating with Nanny Statists is a waste of time. Repeated use of ad hominem attacks are a symptom of your lack of logic.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Goes to show the dangers of having some peoples' humble opinions backed up by the bludgeons and guns of the police, courts, and jails.

One of the many dangers of a society of laws. Get out there and get the laws changed.

[presidio9]

So I guess you never fly or use our highways then? Interesting. How do you think all that pot you are smoking gets to you?

[eyespysomething]

Alas, although your quick witted response hath sliced me not unlike a rapier to the quick, you have failed to answer the question I so posed to you:



post# 577
So do a lot of things. Should the government control everything? My 3 y.o. was swinging and kicked my 2 y.o. when the latter walked in front of the former. Now, either I need to go to jail for being a negligent parent, or swings need to be outlawed because they can cause harm to those around them.

And what about guns?

[commonerX]

There we go again labels, labels, labels. You don't relize how irrelevant it makes your arguement.

[presidio9]

Your question does not warrant a response. You are trying to equate the damage drugs do to society and to individuals to a fight among toddlers. Get back to me when you think of an intelligent allalogy.

[eyespysomething]

What about guns?

[toothless]

Wasn't it you who related smoking MJ with killing your baby?

[lugsoul]

Presidio9 - a serious question:

1) Do you believe that intoxicating substances which, when abused, cause societal problems and cause problems for persons in close proximity to abusers should be outlawed and that their use should be subject to criminal penalties?

2) If so, do you believe that such criminal penalties should be limited to those substances presently illegal, or should additional substances which meet the standard in #1 be added to the prohibition list (i.e. ecstacy in the 80s)?

3) If the former, why?

4) If the latter, can you think of anything not currently on the list that should be?

5) BONUS: Can you name an illegal intoxicating substance of which use was eradicated by making the substance illegal and aggresively pursuing criminal convictions of those who possessed it? How about substantially reduced?

[presidio9]

I have no kids. Next?

[eyespysomething]

fight among toddlers

Twasn't a fight, just a mere wrong place wrong time, but it could happen to anyone, anywhere!

[toothless]

lol, ok.

[commonerX]

It might take presidio9 a little time to get back to you, he has to check with his conservative dictionary. OOPs did I label presidio9!!!

[presidio9]

We passed an ammendment there. Next?