NYTimes Crystal Meth Story and Andrew Sullivan

[rusty charly]

some posts i'm seeing on another board about the times story in relation to sully:




Meanwhile, guess who said this? "There are no laws preventing anyone from drinking ten double espressos or downing several packets of No-Doz. But one sniff of a much more concentrated methamphetamine--which might actually be less damaging to your body--can land you in jail." That's right, crystal is as innocuous as caffeine. La-de-dah. If you guessed HIV+ Republican partyboy "Andrew Sullivan," you're absolutely correct.





I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sully said that. He's hugely pro-drugs and pro-anonymous group sex--he writes things about it all the time on his blog.




i wanted to add that i have absolutely no doubt that andrew sullivan is a tina addict. there is a vast sub-population of HIV positive men who steroid it up, become bloated and huge, and then "party" non-stop on tina with other "poz" guys. they feel there is a freedom to it, because they don't have to worry about getting AIDS anymore. what ends up happening though, is they neglect there own care, medication, etc., and eventually lose the will to live. i have an acquaintance to whom this is happening right now. he was the center of his circle of friends, but has become a pariah, and has virtually disappeared. when i saw the recent pictures of sullivan, and read some of his totally incoherent rants, i knew he was addicted to tina. one more thing to add that disturbs me more than anything else. people that you count as your friends will totally abandon you at the drop of a hat, when you are perceived as having a "problem", when they themselves are more problematic users, usually. and the solitude and loneliness that ends up overtaking their lives as a result, is tragic.






There was a question (previous page) about Andrew Sullivan's quote comparing meth to caffeine. I googled it and found his full column on drug use, where that quote was taken from. Here it is -

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/print.php?artnum=20010305



full nytimes story


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/nyregion/12METH.html

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. *ting*

I think you nailed it. He does rant like a tina-slave.

[ludwigb]

2. Frankly

I'm not concerned, even if there was any reason to believe your accusations. Sullivan is intelligent and responsible enough to decide for himself what he does to his own body It isn't the job of us Democrats to be lecturing him--leave that to the other side.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Lectures don't have anything to do with it...

It's not about lecturing anyway - so far.

It's all about hypocrisy.

He is a voice for the right wing propaganda machine.

He was on TV all the time diuring the Clinton character assassination. He preached. He preached morality.

There are some who could grade the seriousness of using drugs with the seriousness of having an affair (with variations of office and notoriety).

Who knows if he is a user - some are saying he is, others are saying he might be - based on their experience. No one is lecturing.

I look at the hypocrisy angle -

To me, he's just another imported Brit, right wing propaganda artist. Based on his preachings, he should be pure as the driven snow and a model of propriety - based on his in-your-face superiority stance and emphasis he conveyed about Clinton.

[Bronco69]

3. I've also heard rumors that Sully

LOVES to bareback (not use a condom). I wonder if he tells his sex partners about his hiv status.

[theboss]

4. What does this have to do with anything?

I don't care about Sullivan's personal life, moral failings, addictions, etc. I barely care about his writings.

[rusty charly]

6. what it has to do with

is he's published all over the place, his opinions on the american political scene and support of george bush* and the iraq invasion are widely read, and like rush, he could very well be a major drug addict of a drug that severely affects brain function.


just thought it had to do with something.

[David__77]

7. Oh jeez...

I hope that Sullivan is influential on the right in terms of social policy and not influentual with regard to anything else.