Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yasmine Bleeth: My battle with drugs (or, how my nose almost fell off - WOD Alert!)
Yahoo! News ^ | 1.23.03

Posted on 01/24/2003 8:38:49 PM PST by mhking

Yasmine Bleeth: My battle with drugs
Thursday January 23, 2003

FOR Baywatch beauty Yasmine Bleeth, getting high on drugs brought her so low, it nearly killed her.

Now she's poured out her heart and revealed for the first time her horrific battle with cocaine, her rocky fight to win back her life and the love that is helping her.

Two years ago, the actress' drug habit was so bad, she didn't sleep for days at a time. She looked like death and on Sept. 12, 2001, she nearly drove herself into an early grave after losing control of her car on a Michigan road and careening into a median while high.

She spent a night in jail and, after a plea bargain, was sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service.

"For three years, people had been telling me that drugs would kill me," says Yasmine, 34, who was in the car with boyfriend Paul Cerrito, whom she married last August. "And this was my proof."

Bleeth says cocaine crept into her world so slowly, so easily, she didn't realize it until she was hooked.

When her three-year contract with Baywatch ended in 1997, she moved from L.A. to San Francisco and started her gig on Nash Bridges, opposite Don Johnson. Her romance with actor Richard Grieco had all but died, and she started drowning her pain with drugs.

"I just wanted to feel good again," she confides. "And I knew an easy way to get that feeling."

At first Yasmine just snorted the stuff socially on weekends with people she knew. Three months later, she made her first call to a dealer.

"It was like ordering Chinese food," she says. "I made one phone call and they delivered it to my front door."

Suddenly, she was in love again - with the white powder. "It was all I could think about," she admits. "When I was high, I didn't think about my problems. I had no pain. I wouldn't sleep for two or three days, sometimes even four or five."

By the end of 1999, her ghastly appearance started scaring her friends and family.

"I'm a fleshy girl, very curvy and round, but I lost my softness," she says. "I looked like an alien. My eyes were bulging out of my face. I was 110 pounds and a size 0. I looked dead."

In fact, she was slowly killing herself.

"I had an infection that had completely eaten out the inside of my nose," she tells Glamour magazine. "Essentially, I had gangrene in my nose."

The doctor put her on antibiotics and told her that another couple of months with this infection and it could have gone to her brain and killed her.

"That scared me," says Yasmine. "Until I started doing drugs again six weeks later."

In no time, the devastating drug cycle began again. Remarkably, she managed to drag herself to the set of the series Titans. But she was in no shape to film. The show's producer, Aaron Spelling, gave her time off to go to rehab at Promises in Malibu, Calif.

"I did drugs right up until I entered the program," says Yasmine. "I even did drugs in the Town Car on the way there."

During her December 2000 treatment, she met someone who made her feel better than the powder: Michigan bar owner Paul Cerrito, 32. After rehab, Yasmine invited Paul to stay with her in L.A.

"I thought that if ever I could handle doing drugs casually, now would be the time," she says. "But once I started doing coke, I lost control, and it took over my life again."

Yasmine was high when she crashed her car in Michigan a year and a half ago and nearly died. But now she sees that crash as a godsend. "I felt like some force had saved our lives," she says.

She knew she desperately needed to quit drugs - and finally, she did. Then this past August, just less than a year after her car crash, she and Paul tied the knot in Santa Barbara and honeymooned in Hawaii.

Yasmine is clean now, but it hasn't been easy. Her husband's love helps her over the rough patches.

"The feeling I have when I'm with Paul is better than how I felt on cocaine," she says.

But she still has to take one day at a time.

"Consciously trying to stay off drugs is now part of my life, and it always will be," she says.

"I've proven to myself that I can't have both drugs and love. Every day, I have to make the choice again. So far, I choose love."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-143 next last
To: Roscoe
Do you believe the people of California should decide if medical marijuana should be legal?

Why are you afraid to answer that question?

81 posted on 01/25/2003 5:41:07 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
Look at the difference in her nose. Cocaine eats away at it - that's why it looks different.
82 posted on 01/25/2003 5:42:42 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

I warned you.
83 posted on 01/25/2003 5:44:37 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
Do you believe the people of California should decide if medical marijuana should be legal? Why are you afraid to answer that question?

Asked and answered.

Again:

They made their decision, which was that certain state sanctions should be lifted, and that federal law would be unaffected by their vote.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws. One of the ballot arguments in favor of the initiative in fact states: "Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal law prevents the sale of marijuana and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws." Peron, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1393, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (quoting Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996 p. 60)).

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/drugreg/case01.htm

The people of California didn't do what you wanted, so you're reduced to misrepresenting their vote. Repeatedly.
84 posted on 01/25/2003 5:45:55 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I warned you.

Doesn't seem much different from the rest of your posts.

85 posted on 01/25/2003 5:47:12 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
They made their decision, which was that certain state sanctions should be lifted, and that federal law would be unaffected by their vote.
Is that how you read their conclusion? Interesting.
Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.
Did I or did you?
Let's read that conclusion again...
Because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the only issue before the Court is whether defendants' conduct violates federal law. The Court concludes that the federal government has established that it is likely that it does. As these lawsuits are brought to enforce a statute, namely, the Controlled Substances Act, irreparable harm is presumed and the injunction must be granted.
Once again, however, the Court must caution as to what this decision does not do. The Court has not declared Proposition 215 unconstitutional. Nor has it enjoined the possession of marijuana by a seriously ill patient for the patient's personal medical use upon a physician's recommendation. Nor has the Court foreclosed the possibility of a medical necessity or constitutional defense in any proceeding in which it is alleged a defendant has violated the injunction issued herein.

Which state sanctions are lifted?

86 posted on 01/25/2003 5:51:00 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Doesn't seem much different from the rest of your posts.
Yeah, you've got to have one of these...

...for your posts.
87 posted on 01/25/2003 5:55:50 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
And don't you just love how "...irreparable harm is presumed"...
88 posted on 01/25/2003 5:58:11 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Image hosted by Tripod? Oh, well, makes as much sense as the others.
89 posted on 01/25/2003 5:58:23 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Which state sanctions are lifted?

Are you under the impression that California doesn't have laws against marijuana?

Please, read a book.

Better yet, read the law.

(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215text.htm

90 posted on 01/25/2003 6:02:10 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Do you believe the people of California should decide if medical marijuana should be legal? Why are you afraid to answer that question?

Again, you are afraid to answer yes or no.

Why?

91 posted on 01/25/2003 6:05:02 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I'll see if I can find another. I forgot about Tripod's img deal.

92 posted on 01/25/2003 6:10:40 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You didn't answer the question that I can tell.
93 posted on 01/25/2003 6:11:35 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You didn't answer the question that I can tell.

Well, duh.

Section 11357 and Section 11358 are state statutes.

94 posted on 01/25/2003 6:17:29 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/829204/posts?page=84#84
95 posted on 01/25/2003 6:18:15 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I asked if YOU believed Ca. could do that, not what Federal Law says.

I believe Ca. should be able to ban PABs. The Constitution says it cannot.

What is YOUR opinion?

96 posted on 01/25/2003 6:21:43 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Which state sanctions are lifted?
Are you saying that Section 11357 and Section 11358 were the state sanctions lifted?
97 posted on 01/25/2003 6:21:49 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
A remedial reading course might not be that expensive.

(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

98 posted on 01/25/2003 6:25:04 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
I asked if YOU believed Ca. could do that

They didn't.

"Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws."

99 posted on 01/25/2003 6:26:42 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Now each bottle/can contains a big shot of addictive caffeine, about a half cup of good old, non-addictive sugar, some "secret" flavorings and water. It will make hash of your tummy too, but who cares?
100 posted on 01/25/2003 6:28:51 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson