Jump to content

There is no evidence Britney abused illicit *****.


zxcvb

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm not disputing Ronan Farrow did a good job on his recent article in the New Yorker, but I still do not agree that evidence from the period in question endorses the notion that she was ever a **** abuser of illicit *****. 

I'm not saying that she has never tried ***** in her life, but the notion she was an abuser of illicit ***** during that period simply is not supported by BOTH the negative media's AND paparazzi's own reporting when she was the most scrutinized person in the world...

"Sources tell TMZ that Lynne Spears, Kevin Federline and then-manager Larry Rudolph all pressured Britney to check herself in. We're told Spears acknowledged having emotional problems after her second child was born, but strongly maintained she did not have a **** or alcohol problem.

We're told eventually the professionals believed Spears suffered from post-partum depression, made worse because she stopped taking Prozac. She was also emotionally crumbling because of a messy divorce and intense media scrutiny.

After leaving Promises, as paparazzi waited for the golden shot of Britney drinking again, she began getting angry that she was at a rehab facility in the first place. Britney and her assistant, Allie Sims, called Promises multiple times, asking for a copy of the report showing that she tested dirty for ***** and/or alcohol when she checked in.

We're told it took several days to get an answer. Only two reports were sent to Britney's rep, both showing no **** or alcohol use whatsoever. Most shocking, the first report was dated March 7, 15 days after Britney checked in.

Sources say one of Britney's reps then called the facility and asked for any evidence of a dirty test, but she was told there was nothing in the file. The question -- if the first test was taken more than two weeks after Britney checked in, how could they treat her if they didn't know the problem?"

https://www.tmz.com/2007/06/29/britney-claims-her-rehab-was-bogus/

"Earlier this week, Britney’s attorney Sorrell Trope told People the pop star had been passing her court-ordered **** tests, which will likely help Britney’s argument. “She’s passed her random **** tests,” Trope told People. “There’s been more than one. They came up negative.”

https://www.accessonline.com/articles/lawyer-britney-passing-court-ordered-****-tests-61079

https://www.accessonline.com/articles/britney-arrives-to-court-to-fight-for-extended-visitation-rights-61104

"...The judge also ordered Britney to make a “good faith” effort to follow his orders, which include undergoing random **** tests and obtaining a California driver's license. Since then, Britney has become a licensed driver, reportedly passed her **** tests and met with a parenting coach."

https://extratv.com/2007/10/11/britney-files-emergency-motion-for-more-visitation/

"There are reports circulating that Britney's positive **** test last week was the result of Provigil, a prescription for treatment of narcolepsy. Well, we're told it ain't so. In generic **** testing -- the type performed on Britney -- there is not a special screening for Provigil.

In addition, we know the tests actually performed on Spears (until last week) all came back negative, and she had been taking Provigil before that. The plot thickens."

https://www.tmz.com/2007/11/12/analyzing-britneys-urine-its-not-provigil/

"A new report claims that Brit, 25, has failed her court-ordered **** test. However, there are multiple reports that the troubled singer tested positive for prescription ***** only. X-17 quotes a source saying there were no illegal ***** in her system."

https://extratv.com/2007/11/12/did-britney-fail-a-****-test/

"On Friday, Life & Style reported that Britney was tested for **** and alcohol use after being admitted to Cedars and the tests came back negative.

“Her blood test just came back, and, thank God, it was clean. There are no traces of ***** or alcohol of any kind,” a source close to the Spears family told Life & Style."

https://www.accessonline.com/articles/report-britney-had-two-guns-in-her-home-61994

Thoughts on this clear discrepancy?

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

She could have been abusing prescription *****. But there’s never been any solid proof of **** use. That would be something basically only she would know and those around her if the in fact witnessed/took part in it. 

Posted
1 hour ago, AP4 said:

She could have been abusing prescription *****. But there’s never been any solid proof of **** use. That would be something basically only she would know and those around her if the in fact witnessed/took part in it. 

Well many people from that time agree-paparazzi, media reports etc... she was taking prescription ***** back in 2007-2008 but my main point is that she was never abusing ***** like co****e or m*** or things like that, and the reporting from back then also supports this.

Posted
3 minutes ago, chizwhiz said:

The judge in the child custody case publicly said that she was a 'habitual, frequent and continual' user of substances. They used that to take primary custody off her before the cship existed.

That doesn't mean anything and what he said isn't evidence; the judge in Britney's conservatorship case cited Britney having dementia as a basis to put her in a conservatorship...

 

  • Super Mods
Posted

You have no evidence. Just “reportedly” “according to TMZ” “an insider said blah blah blah.” :whitney_houston_huh_oh_really_well_look_stare_welp:

We don’t have any evidence-medical records, doctor testimony, etc.- that either proves or disproves that she used *****. Just like we don’t have access to her private medical information.

If she used *****, she has obviously worked to be ****-free. But we also don’t know and don’t have special access to her day to day life.

Posted
9 minutes ago, SlayOut said:

You have no evidence. Just “reportedly” “according to TMZ” “an insider said blah blah blah.” :whitney_houston_huh_oh_really_well_look_stare_welp:

We don’t have any evidence-medical records, doctor testimony, etc.- that either proves or disproves that she used *****. Just like we don’t have access to her private medical information.

If she used *****, she has obviously worked to be ****-free. But we also don’t know and don’t have special access to her day to day life.

I don't want to know about her medical records; but Ronan Farrow's article is the piece that again suggested she took illicit *****, not my post.

And I didn't just quote TMZ; at the end of the day, Britney was the most scrutinized person in the world and both the media and paparazzi consistently reported that she tested negative for illicit ***** that whole period.

Anything to suggest otherwise would be slanderous since Britney herself said in For The Record that **** use was not her problem during that time.

Posted
3 hours ago, chizwhiz said:

The judge in the child custody case publicly said that she was a 'habitual, frequent and continual' user of substances. They used that to take primary custody off her before the cship existed.

And that was something they pulled off their ***** because

-they clearly had no proof as the custom say they would have to take custody away from her, which didn't happen after Commissary Gordon said that

-she came clean on her random **** tests

Posted

MTE. I don't but for me it's so hard to believe Britney was addited to *****, it just doesn't seem like her :decisions_britney_thinking_confused_focusing_unsure_xfactor_bw_black_white: But I think she had a problem with amphetamine right? Idk but coc.aine seems too much for being Britney.

Posted

Why did she talk about meet some"friends" in A.A. (anonymous alcohólics) in the testimony?

Why does she still attends A.A. if she hasn't drunk alcohol in 13 years and is watched all the time?

Posted

It really shouldn’t matter to anyone if she had substance abuse problems especially if she no longer has those problems. Before Kevin it was hinted she had at least experimented with ***** and she seemed to be high in chaotic although maybe that’s just her personality. In the end the only one that can confirm that is her and she doesn’t have to if it’s true or not. She owes no explanations if she doesn’t want to give them about anything people speculate about. 
 

 

Posted

I want to know if Kevin passed the same tests. I am sure they smoked w**d together while married but then it came to child custody and money only Britneys **** using was checked. Kevin played her dirty. He knew he'll get big paycheck if he'll get sole custody and she only will have visits. I do not believe he wanted 50/50 but things went wrong. I believe he and his lawyer knew how to make it in his favour. He saw she was a good mother. But still took away her kids and he was the reason she end up in 5150. As she just wanted kids to stay with her. 

Posted
9 hours ago, zxcvb said:

That doesn't mean anything and what he said isn't evidence; the judge in Britney's conservatorship case cited Britney having dementia as a basis to put her in a conservatorship...

 

This is a totally different court case with different evidence and witnesses. They don't give custody over hearsay, I'm going to say there was evidence. 

 

Posted

Whether she did ***** a few times for fun or whether she actually abused ***** doesn’t really matter in my opinion.  And even if she abused them doesn’t have to mean she was physically addicted. But my point is, they’re chaining her to that, acting like if they let her free she’d immediately go and do it again. I can’t know for sure obviously but I believe whatever medications they abused her with over the years has had worse effects than whatever ***** she might have done. She talked about lasting trauma herself. **** addicts, whether Britney was one or not, are just people like everyone else and perfectly capable of recovering and leading healthy lives. If I were to make a guess I’d say she probably tried the hard stuff a few times because such is Hollywood but then might have abused prescription ***** and I do honestly believe those people gave it to her too. Either way, most important thing is I think that we know Britney never did any of those  things around her kids, or at least so far people who were around that time say she never did and I believe that. 

 

Posted

Something happened for them to be able to claim all this stuff about medical records and her privacy and what not against her. They are 1000% using that against her, which has probably backed them up for most of this conservatorship. They do mention a sealed medical record that will not be released to public.  
 

Here’s my thoughts: at one point during 2006-2007 I believe Britney may have been allegedly playing with prescription pills or substances. There had to of been something that she was into that caused the courts to use that against her. She also mentioned that she’s gone to AA meetings. Not to mention all of the rehabs and therapy centres they have sent her to. 
 

Regardless of whatever happened with Britney then, it’s nobody business and they shouldn’t be able to use that against her. We can make mistakes in life and grow as a person and shouldn’t have something labeled onto us forever, which is what I believe is happening with her. Something she did was able to kick start this conservatorship. I also don’t believe for a second the sealed medical record that they were given was the dementia file because we all know that claim is FALSE. 
 

if there was a substance abuse problem, then yes she needs to have someone who will keep her on track. Let’s stop acting like she has some **** addiction and let her learn from her mistakes without being in a prison. 
 

OR is this story made up by team con to keep her in the conservatorship? Remember the doctor that passed away? Could he have potentially been in on this to sign off on it? Allegedly. 

Posted
6 hours ago, icybaby said:

I want to know if Kevin passed the same tests. I am sure they smoked w**d together while married but then it came to child custody and money only Britneys **** using was checked. Kevin played her dirty. He knew he'll get big paycheck if he'll get sole custody and she only will have visits. I do not believe he wanted 50/50 but things went wrong. I believe he and his lawyer knew how to make it in his favour. He saw she was a good mother. But still took away her kids and he was the reason she end up in 5150. As she just wanted kids to stay with her. 

This makes me so sad :( 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...