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.

[toothless]

We passed an amendment about 'intoxicating beverages' too. Where is the one about MJ?

[mvpel]

You are fixated on the overall all value of the drug. For the street pusher, the value of pot is the value of the transaction. If a street pusher is currently marking up an ounce $20, he will continue to do so when his sale of legalized pot to minors is still illegal.

I never smoked or drank in high school... does anyone know if the street pushers were marking up a pack of smokes or a six-pack of beer by $20 when selling to minors? Does anyone know if the tobacco and alcohol street pushers are making enough money selling smokes and beer to minors to run a multi-billion dollar smuggling cartel and buy politicians in backwater South American countries?

If they are, it must be pretty embarassing when they're busted by a Boy Scout.

[presidio9]

If you want a response from me, you gotta post from me. It's easy.

But since this thread has awakened the usual pro-job nutcases I can make no promises.

[Capt.YankeeMike]

ref: your post #6 . You are correct. Alcohol is MUCH more debilatative, and addictive, than pot. Its not even close.

(I should know, and do have firsthand knowledge as a friend of Bill W.)

[Xenalyte]

You're sweet. :)

[Redcloak]

WARNING: Smoking Marijuana may cause you to become addicted to biting off bat heads.

[lugsoul]

Whoops - okay, here it is: 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?

Double bonus - what is a pro-job nut?

[eyespysomething]

Oh goodie, the Constitution. I shall return later this evening for a rousing discussion about how the Constitution decries we need a War on Drugs (not literally of course, but they do say they want us to have the government make decisions for us, right?)

I cannot wait.

Toodles.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Blush............

[Helms]

I would guess that drug and evolutionary discussion may take up a rack of servers and about as many UPS's.

[lugsoul]

Really? I heard it would make you turn into a bat.

[Mr. Mojo]

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

Correction: Some abusers of certain drugs harm others. So what's your solution, complete prohibition of all drugs that might have these effects? If that's the case, and to be logically consistent, you'd have to advocate the prohibition of alcohol as well.

[bird4four4]

I was also wondering what a pro-job nutcase was. He won't answer you question though. I'm still waiting on 414

[lugsoul]

Did this thread just go quiet, or what?

[presidio9]

I wish you luck with that. I'm sticking to how ridiculous the alcholo arguement is.

[mvpel]

I'm getting pretty close to my "fed up" point when my articulate responses are distilled down to a single irrelevant sentence in a reply. Maybe others have already exceeded that point.

[mvpel]

Just admit it, Presidio - you long for the days of alcohol prohibition. It's okay, we're all friends here.

[presidio9]

Nope. Not at all. I just enjoy hearing you guys try to explain how alcohol is so bad, but legalizing drugs will solve that problem. Don't you see what a loser that arguement is?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Nope. Not at all. I just enjoy hearing you guys try to explain how alcohol is so bad, but legalizing drugs will solve that problem. Don't you see what a loser that arguement is?

Homerun!

[lugsoul]

Well, it seems clear that presidio will just continue to say that the alcohol argument is "ridiculous." I'm not sure why he takes that position, except for the "just because one thing is legal doesn't mean another should be" spiel. And, ya know, I must say I don't entirely disagree with that. I will say, though, that the reasons for making a substance illegal should apply equally to other substances, i.e. our reasons for outlawing substances should be consistently applied. Without reference to the alcohol argument, I've given him a fine opportunity to respond to that issue without having to get into the alcohol v. pot argument. We can talk about other substances, the theory behind prohibition, whatever. But I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.