PDA

View Full Version : R.I.P. Philip Seymour Hoffman



The Man
02-02-2014, 08:33 PM
That sucks; he was one of the best actors of his generation (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/movies/philip-seymour-hoffman-actor-dies-at-46.html) :(

Calliope
02-02-2014, 08:34 PM
Don't do heroin, kids. RIP PSH.

Parker
02-03-2014, 12:12 AM
I am way beyond upset over this

escobert
02-03-2014, 01:22 AM
:( I think I just sharted.

Shiny
02-03-2014, 01:32 AM
The best talents are always insane, drug addicts, or a combination of both. RIP Hoff. Definitely one of the best actors there was, and could cry on camera like no one else with red face and all.

Shorty
02-03-2014, 01:54 AM
A good dude. I haven't seen enough of his movies, but I greatly enjoyed Magnolia. Sucks that he has such problems.

Slothy
02-03-2014, 01:56 AM
A good dude. I haven't seen enough of his movies, but I greatly enjoyed Magnolia. Sucks that he has such problems.

I think "had" may be the more appropriate tense.

Dude was a god damn acting power house. Even in movies like MI3 where acting ability wouldn't seem all that important the man knocked it out of the park.

Del Murder
02-03-2014, 04:59 AM
He made every movie he was in better. It's a shame that he went out in the standard celebrity drug overdose. I thought he was above such things.

Ayen
02-03-2014, 05:09 AM
I recognize the name, but can't for the life of me remember if I've seen any of his movies.

RIP

Mirage
02-03-2014, 05:24 PM
Why heroin, man. Couldn't you have gotten addicted to something that doesn't kill you as easily instead?

The Man
02-04-2014, 05:04 AM
This is probably a worthwhile opportunity to rant about the war on drugs, because it is looking increasingly likely that it killed Philip Seymour Hoffman. It is suspected that the heroin that killed Hoffman was laced with fentanyl (http://www.ibtimes.com/philip-seymour-hoffman-dead-suspected-overdose-was-fentanyl-laced-heroin-blame-1553042), a painkiller that has directly caused a large number of drug overdoses recently (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/01/30/Tests-confirm-fentanyl-laced-heroin-led-to-14-overdose-deaths-in-Allegheny-County/stories/201401300252) (this is just the most recent article I found; there are plenty more). Fentanyl is a much more potent painkiller than heroin and greatly increases the chance of death by overdose; as a result, fatal overdoses have spiked recently. Evidently it shows up because it "makes up" for poor-quality heroin. It is also so remarkably strong that it is extremely difficult to dilute it properly and safely, especially when it's being handled by clandestine makers, and can easily kill someone not habituated to a stronger dose. This mix is therefore much, much worse than pure heroin.

The fact that such a shoddy and dangerous mix can even be sold is a direct consequence of the war on drugs. The result of heroin being illegal is that the consistency and purity of the drug cannot be regulated, and people ingesting or injecting the drug really have no idea what they're taking. Keith Richards managed to avoid overdosing in twenty or more years of using the drug because he always, always used the same amount, but he also was fortunate enough to have a source that provided him with heroin of a consistent purity and potency. With the drug market not being regulated, the drug becomes vastly more harmful, since apart from its addictiveness, it is arguably less harmful to the body than alcohol when a consistent amount is consistently used. The difficulty is, of course, in using a consistent amount consistently when you don't actually know what you're getting.

Of course, we have to note that some people seek the heroin-fentanyl mixture out deliberately because of its potency, but even bearing that in mind, the illegality still affects drug users negatively because it is so difficult to dilute the mixture safely.

It's also worth noting that addicts frequently overdose when they resume using after stints in rehab (which Hoffman had recently visited) because they may go back to the dose they were using before they cleaned up, which they no longer have the tolerance for.

Anyway, people are inevitably going to use this to call for stricter policing of drugs and whatnot when it's in fact a direct consequence of the war on drugs that we even have so many overdoses, and it pisses me off. The whole idea that keeping the drug supply illegal will make people safer has been completely and utterly discredited; people who are addicted to potentially dangerous substances are not concerned with the legality of their drug of choice. Setting up safe injection sites where addicts can be assured a safe, untainted supply that is not likely to kill them (either through needle infection or through overdose) is far less harmful to society than trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. Even Richard Nixon understood this, which is why he set up methadone clinics. Unfortunately, modern politicians are completely clueless, and until there is a sea change in the way drugs are handled, many more people will continue to die unnecessarily.

But really, until the details are confirmed we can't be sure what happened. A huge tragedy, though. There were few actors in his calibre (Daniel Day-Lewis and Meryl Streep are the only two that come to mind) and I can't even imagine how awful his family must feel.

Del Murder
02-04-2014, 06:27 AM
The war on drugs killed PSH? Come on. He had an addiction to a dangerous (and rightfully illegal) substance. He should not have broken the law to repeatedly use the substance in the first place. It's a terrible loss to the entertainment industry, but he's responsible for his undoing, not the government.

The Man
02-04-2014, 07:06 AM
It's dangerous because it's illegal, as I already pointed out. A person who routinely uses the same dose of pure heroin has very little chance of overdosing and practically none of dying from it. Because dealers take to lacing their supplies with even more dangerous substances like fentanyl, though, and also because the consistency of the drug is not regulated, the risk of overdose is greatly increased.

Portugal decriminalised drugs around ten years ago and has seen overdoses fall by a huge margin (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/). Vancouver's safe injection site has had similar results (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/vancouvers-safe-injection-site-cuts-overdose-deaths/article577010/). The criminalisation of heroin directly contributes to drug overdoses.

Jiro
02-04-2014, 07:30 AM
Man, that sucks. Fucking drug addictions. Bad luck dude

Shiny
02-04-2014, 08:50 AM
Interesting article: Philip Seymour Hoffman's Acting Teacher Remembers the Actor: 'He was willing to journey to very complicated places' (http://www.indiewire.com/article/philip-seymour-hoffmans-acting-teacher-remembers-the-actor-he-was-really-a-mess-but-an-absolutely-creative-mess)

sharkythesharkdogg
02-04-2014, 01:48 PM
Heroin hassled the Hoff.

Don't hassle the Hoff. :(

Was is it with apparently successful people and horrible chemical addictions? I guess they get depressed or bored like anyone else, but sheesh, you're established and wealthy. Go buy a speed boat or something. :|

The Man
02-04-2014, 01:53 PM
To be fair, he developed his chemical dependency on drugs before he was well known or rich, and those are things that never entirely go away. Apparently he was clean for over twenty years before he relapsed again, and who knows what kind of thing makes someone relapse :/

sharkythesharkdogg
02-04-2014, 03:56 PM
Yeah, fair enough. I guess a lot of them do develop their issues before making it big, but I'm sure it's not all of them. I guess the others get wrapped up it that part lifestyle peer pressure or something.


Anyway, he was indeed a fine actor, and his additions to the craft will be missed.

Bolivar
02-04-2014, 06:40 PM
He was great in everything I've seen him in.

Slothy
02-04-2014, 07:09 PM
The war on drugs killed PSH? Come on. He had an addiction to a dangerous (and rightfully illegal) substance. He should not have broken the law to repeatedly use the substance in the first place. It's a terrible loss to the entertainment industry, but he's responsible for his undoing, not the government.

I think The Man covered things pretty well. All the available evidence points to the criminalization of drugs being ineffective, counter-productive, and dangerous. Sure, Hoffman had an addiction, and that is rough and what lead to him using the heroin that killed him. But the drug being illegal is what made the stuff he used outright deadly. And it is a shame to hear an intelligent person such as yourself say that the drugs should be illegal when there's plenty of reason to think they really, really shouldn't be.

Say what you will about whether or not someone should use drugs. The fact is there are always going to be people who do, and I'd much rather see them having access to a safe product that isn't produced and trafficked by violent cartels than be forced to risk their lives everytime they use and possibly never get the help they need or kick the addiction as a result.

sharkythesharkdogg
02-04-2014, 07:20 PM
I just want to know you're secret for keeping it mostly in the Territories and B.C. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009002/article/10847-eng.htm)

Rocket Edge
02-04-2014, 09:07 PM
Great actor, and sad news. :(

When I was driving today and I heard it again on the radio it made me think who else on the acting scene is taking hard drugs that we don't know about? A lot it would seem.

escobert
02-04-2014, 10:47 PM
This is probably a worthwhile opportunity to rant about the war on drugs, because it is looking increasingly likely that it killed Philip Seymour Hoffman. It is suspected that the heroin that killed Hoffman was laced with fentanyl (http://www.ibtimes.com/philip-seymour-hoffman-dead-suspected-overdose-was-fentanyl-laced-heroin-blame-1553042), a painkiller that has directly caused a large number of drug overdoses recently (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/01/30/Tests-confirm-fentanyl-laced-heroin-led-to-14-overdose-deaths-in-Allegheny-County/stories/201401300252) (this is just the most recent article I found; there are plenty more). Fentanyl is a much more potent painkiller than heroin and greatly increases the chance of death by overdose; as a result, fatal overdoses have spiked recently. Evidently it shows up because it "makes up" for poor-quality heroin. It is also so remarkably strong that it is extremely difficult to dilute it properly and safely, especially when it's being handled by clandestine makers, and can easily kill someone not habituated to a stronger dose. This mix is therefore much, much worse than pure heroin.

The fact that such a shoddy and dangerous mix can even be sold is a direct consequence of the war on drugs. The result of heroin being illegal is that the consistency and purity of the drug cannot be regulated, and people ingesting or injecting the drug really have no idea what they're taking. Keith Richards managed to avoid overdosing in twenty or more years of using the drug because he always, always used the same amount, but he also was fortunate enough to have a source that provided him with heroin of a consistent purity and potency. With the drug market not being regulated, the drug becomes vastly more harmful, since apart from its addictiveness, it is arguably less harmful to the body than alcohol when a consistent amount is consistently used. The difficulty is, of course, in using a consistent amount consistently when you don't actually know what you're getting.

Of course, we have to note that some people seek the heroin-fentanyl mixture out deliberately because of its potency, but even bearing that in mind, the illegality still affects drug users negatively because it is so difficult to dilute the mixture safely.

It's also worth noting that addicts frequently overdose when they resume using after stints in rehab (which Hoffman had recently visited) because they may go back to the dose they were using before they cleaned up, which they no longer have the tolerance for.

Anyway, people are inevitably going to use this to call for stricter policing of drugs and whatnot when it's in fact a direct consequence of the war on drugs that we even have so many overdoses, and it pisses me off. The whole idea that keeping the drug supply illegal will make people safer has been completely and utterly discredited; people who are addicted to potentially dangerous substances are not concerned with the legality of their drug of choice. Setting up safe injection sites where addicts can be assured a safe, untainted supply that is not likely to kill them (either through needle infection or through overdose) is far less harmful to society than trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. Even Richard Nixon understood this, which is why he set up methadone clinics. Unfortunately, modern politicians are completely clueless, and until there is a sea change in the way drugs are handled, many more people will continue to die unnecessarily.

But really, until the details are confirmed we can't be sure what happened. A huge tragedy, though. There were few actors in his calibre (Daniel Day-Lewis and Meryl Streep are the only two that come to mind) and I can't even imagine how awful his family must feel.

And what about the 100+% increase in opium production since our nice little freedom building war in terror in the region it mainly comes from. But our troops don't guard opium fields or anything :p



Heroin hassled the Hoff.

Don't hassle the Hoff. :(

Was is it with apparently successful people and horrible chemical addictions? I guess they get depressed or bored like anyone else, but sheesh, you're established and wealthy. Go buy a speed boat or something. :|

In order to have genius you must lose something else!

Shoeberto
02-07-2014, 05:08 PM
The war on drugs killed PSH? Come on. He had an addiction to a dangerous (and rightfully illegal) substance. He should not have broken the law to repeatedly use the substance in the first place. It's a terrible loss to the entertainment industry, but he's responsible for his undoing, not the government.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I wanted to write up a response to this a few days ago but I didn't have time - luckily, Russel brand wrote a few things about Hoffman (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/06/russell-brand-philip-seymour-hoffman-drug-laws) and the nature of addiction (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/mar/09/russell-brand-life-without-drugs) that pretty well sum up my thoughts. I sincerely hope you take the time to read and reflect on what he says.

Crop
02-07-2014, 06:21 PM
To be fair, he developed his chemical dependency on drugs before he was well known or rich, and those are things that never entirely go away. Apparently he was clean for over twenty years before he relapsed again, and who knows what kind of thing makes someone relapse :/

While the physical symptoms of heroin eventually go away when you stop using, the psychological addiction often doesn't ever go away.

Del Murder
02-07-2014, 06:58 PM
The war on drugs killed PSH? Come on. He had an addiction to a dangerous (and rightfully illegal) substance. He should not have broken the law to repeatedly use the substance in the first place. It's a terrible loss to the entertainment industry, but he's responsible for his undoing, not the government.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I wanted to write up a response to this a few days ago but I didn't have time - luckily, Russel brand wrote a few things about Hoffman (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/06/russell-brand-philip-seymour-hoffman-drug-laws) and the nature of addiction (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/mar/09/russell-brand-life-without-drugs) that pretty well sum up my thoughts. I sincerely hope you take the time to read and reflect on what he says.
It was hard to get through those (not a fan of Brand's writing style) but I did read them. I don't agree with his conclusions but it was some good insight. It seems like it is more of the culture surrounding the law rather than the law itself that results in these things happening with frequency.

Maybe I will never truly understand addiction because I am gifted with an incredible self-will which prevents me from being addicted to anything, and a life free of depression which removes the desire of using drugs in the first place. So when these things happen I can't help but wonder how the victim 'let' them happen. Maybe addiction is a powerful disease and is not rational, but at the end of the day it is your own self that makes you stick that needle in your arm. Hoffman was 23 years sober before this happened so obviously he was capable of not doing drugs. Even Russell Brand has done it for 10 years. Anyone can overcome addiction and it's really up to that individual to choose what path they take, not the government.

Calliope
02-07-2014, 07:43 PM
There are many reasons why someone might choose to do drugs, drink alcohol, have reckless sex, drive too fast, or otherwise make unhealthy and unwise decisions. Anyone can overcome addiction, but when the alternative to using includes depression, suicidal ideation (what kind of life do you have left if you're no longer high, just in withdrawal?) debt, isolation and the complete lack of a support system (similar to attitudes you demonstrated in your post), then it does not surprise me in the slightest that people relapse when they think they have no positive life options.

He was clean for 23 years, but maybe that was 23 years of excruciating effort and dealing with media pressure that he could no longer cope with, who knows? People relapse for all kinds of reasons, from thinking they can "handle it now", to being triggered by some sort of change or life event. Recovery seems to be a constant thing one has to be mindful of, sure - but if you're saying that the government has no responsibility to even try to decrease the unnecessary deaths associated with laced drugs, then that's really disappointing given that a lot of addicts have had the sorts of experiences you don't seem to be able to understand or identify with.

Del Murder
02-07-2014, 07:49 PM
Of course the government has that responsibility. We're using responsible in two different ways.

Calliope
02-07-2014, 08:09 PM
Alright. Well then I agree that both drug use and recovery are constant decisions, it's just unfortunate that for some people it can seem like the only thing they have any ability to choose.

Shiny
02-08-2014, 05:10 AM
Brand's article is ridiculous and rightfully so since he is a drug addict. The government should mandate drugs because drug addicts can't self regulate? How abused. Heroin is pernicious regardless of it's dosage. Why should the government make it legal and mandate it?

The Man
02-08-2014, 05:35 AM
People overdose because heroin is illegal, not because they are users of the drug. As I pointed out above, consistently using a consistent amount of the drug presents at most a minimal risk of overdose, but because of the war on drugs, users have no way of being assured that what they get has uniform consistency (or, for that matter, that it is in fact heroin; as the link I posted above indicates, it's quite possible that what killed Hoffman was actually fentanyl). Regulating the drug would solve that, but it's impossible to regulate a black market, because it's a black market. Drug addiction is a health issue, and treating it as a criminal matter kills drug users.

And as far as I'm aware Brand has been sober for quite some time, but whether he is an addict or not is irrelevant to his point, which is that the war on drugs causes overdoses.

Miriel
02-08-2014, 05:37 AM
Listen.

The war on drugs is stupid and has some terrible consequences. It's terrible that PSH is gone because he was a tremendous talent in this world. Addiction is horrible and tricky and insidious and definitely something that can stay with someone for the entirety of their lives.

But can people please stop acting like people with addictions don't have personal responsibility for their own trout? No one should be doing god damn heroin. The very very first time a person uses heroin, they do it probably knowing the rabbit hole they're going down. The fact that PSH is dead is his own fault. Tragic for sure. I feel so terribly sad for him that he couldn't beat his addiction. And I'm not going to pretend that keeping clean is easy or anything but a constant struggle. Or that mentally and emotionally, addicts don't face a huge challenge. But that doesn't change the fact that when an addict dies of a drug overdose, it is STILL THEIR OWN FAULT.

That doesn't mean they deserved to die, or that treatment programs shouldn't be readily available. It just means that it's a life choice they made that brought them down that path. Those who die of drug overdoses, unless forced into using drugs against their free will, are responsible for themselves. That means being responsible for their addiction.

The Man
02-08-2014, 05:43 AM
If his supply was laced with fentanyl without his knowledge, then no, his death is patently not his own fault; it's the fault of the dealers responsible for lacing the drugs with fentanyl and the lawmakers responsible for the troutty smurfing war on drugs which makes such practices possible in the first place. It's easy to say, "People just shouldn't do drugs in the first place", but that's utterly useless. People have been saying that for hundreds of years and it hasn't stopped people from doing drugs. People do do drugs and they will continue to do them regardless of whether they are legal or not, not least of which is because of their addictions. The war on drugs makes drugs dramatically less safe than they need to be. Heroin is dangerous because of the war on drugs, not because it's heroin.

Hoffman is responsible for his addiction, yes, but he is not responsible for his death. An addiction shouldn't be a death sentence, and if we had sensible drug laws, it wouldn't be.

Del Murder
02-08-2014, 08:12 AM
Well, so far, it doesn't look like Hoffman's heroin had fentanyl (http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2014/02/04/heroin_in_philip_seymour_hoffmans_flat_tests_negative_for_fentanyl.html). But even if it did, he's still buying an illegal substance from an unknown origin and he should/would be aware of the risks of such additives possibly being included. It's his choice to ignore those risks and take it anyway.

If I buy an illegal jet pack from a guy in a van and it explodes in my face, I'm not going to blame the guy in the van. Sure he sold me a crap product but it's my own damn fault for being dumb enough to trust someone selling me an illegal jet pack. Does that mean jet packs should be made legal and regulated by the government? No, because those things are dangerous even when they work properly.

Quindiana Jones
02-08-2014, 08:22 AM
Your responses in this thread are functionally like a combination of slut-shaming and that thing arseholes do when they meet people with mental issues, i.e. "have you tried not being depressed?"; ignorance mixed with self-righteous judgemental-ness, and it's quite frankly disappointing to hear from people who normally try to consider things with more depth and clarity. :(

The Man
02-08-2014, 02:17 PM
No, because those things are dangerous even when they work properly.Which thereby distinguishes it from heroin, which poses fewer health risks than cigarettes as long as you continually inject the same amount. A more adequate analogy is buying sugar and getting rat poison instead. The person who sold you the rat poison is clearly culpable.

And even if Hoffman's heroin wasn't tainted with fentanyl (notably it only takes a couple drops of it to kill someone, because the stuff is at least 50 times more potent than heroin) that still doesn't mean he wasn't given an unusually potent dose, which is also possible.

Quin is absolutely 100% correct.

Miriel
02-08-2014, 05:55 PM
Your responses in this thread are functionally like a combination of slut-shaming and that thing arseholes do when they meet people with mental issues, i.e. "have you tried not being depressed?"; ignorance mixed with self-righteous judgemental-ness, and it's quite frankly disappointing to hear from people who normally try to consider things with more depth and clarity. :(

And this kind of response is an absurd sort of twisting of someone's disagreement to your own stance by willfully ignoring reasonable and logical thinking. Akin to slut shaming?? Seriously you want to go there? In one situation you have someone who could potentially be harmed completely because another separate human being can't allow for someone to dress or express themselves in a way they deem appropriate. If someone else had forcibly given heroin to PSH because he had an addiction problem and therefore "deserved" to be drugged, then you're silly ass argument might have some semblance of making sense. And yeah, expressing sadness at the difficulties an addict faces without absolving them of their responsibilities is soooooo exactly like telling someone to just stop being depressed. You're so right! There is no distinction or nuance here! Please, give me a break. Ridiculous. Ten thousand eye rolling emoticons for you. :roll2

I've had the option to take ecstasy before. And you know what? It's a fairly safe drug. The worst that happens is usually overheating or dehydration. But there is a small, very small, chance that you might have seizure or stroke cause of it. Now if I took some for recreational fun and ended up in the hospital, you know whose fault that would be? Fucking MINE. Jesus fucking Christ on a stick. It would be my god damn fault. If the person I had got it from gave me some sort of shotty laced version of the drug then it would be that persons fault too. But just because multiple people might be at fault doesn't mean that the responsibility still wasn't mine own as well. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?

No one is saying that the person who might have supplied PSH didn't have a hand in his death, just that this doesn't take away from PSH's own responsibility as well. Responsibility isn't a zero sum game. You can blame the government and society and dealers and bad friends and all sorts of other people. That doesn't absolve PSH for his own hand in his death. Not unless the death is somehow discovered to have been a murder staged as an overdose.

Shorty
02-08-2014, 05:55 PM
People overdose because heroin is illegal, not because they are users of the drug.

I cannot disagree more with this. They overdose because they are addicts addicted to an addictive substance and cannot control their intake of it because they relinquish their own self-discipline in exchange to comply with their compulsive needs. It's really an absurd statement to make, and a presumptuous one at that.

People die from alcohol poisoning every day because they are addicted to drinking. People become addicted to sugar and fats and what have you, and they die from the effects those substances have on their bodies when they grow to be 400 pounds. People lose body parts due to being unable to stop smoking. It doesn't matter the legality issues of the substance. If a substance is addictive and you cannot respond properly to it, it will harm you. And if you think that regulating heroin as a legal substance will prevent addicts from overdosing on it, you are living in a fantasy world.

I seriously doubt his heroin was laced with anything. Heroin kills you, period. He's been clean and sober for 20+ years and probably took a portion that was the size of what he would have done when he was raging two decades ago. It was too much for his body to handle and it killed him. Simple as that.

Del Murder
02-08-2014, 06:01 PM
No, because those things are dangerous even when they work properly.Which thereby distinguishes it from heroin, which poses fewer health risks than cigarettes as long as you continually inject the same amount. A more adequate analogy is buying sugar and getting rat poison instead. The person who sold you the rat poison is clearly culpable.
First of all, an addict will build up a tolerance and therefore will not be continually injecting the same amount. Second, suggesting a continual injection of heroin as an acceptable course of action is atrocious. Finally, your sugar analogy doesn't work because sugar is not a dangerous addictive substance and you can buy it at any grocery store. If the grocery store sold you rat poison, then yes they would be at fault. If instead sugar was illegal and the guy you bought it from on the black market sold you rat poison, then sure he's an butthole for selling you poison, but it's also your fault for buying something on the black market you know you shouldn't be buying. If heroin wasn't dangerous or addicting, then I'd be fine with making it legal. If we were talking about sugar and PSH died of injesting rat poison-laced sugar then I'd be all with you guys in making it legal. It still wouldn't change the fact that the guy was dumb for buying something illegal from an unknown source.

I'm not being judgmental. I acknowledge that addiction is a serious disease and people who suffer from it need to he helped rather than treated like criminals. The criminals are the ones making and selling this stuff, but that's kind of the point. They are criminals and should be criminals. Addition is a disease but it still takes a personal choice to inject that needle or smoke that rock (for the first time at least). How many thousands or millions of potential addicts are there out there who are not currently addicts because the illegal nature of the drugs have prevented them from trying it? Think about all the people suffering from alcoholism and dying of lung cancer as a result of legal drugs. Everyone killed by a drunk driver. Why would you want to potentially create more addicts by decriminalizing an extremely dangerous substance and making it widely available for recreational use? That's just irresponsible.


Your responses in this thread are functionally like a combination of slut-shaming and that thing arseholes do when they meet people with mental issues, i.e. "have you tried not being depressed?"; ignorance mixed with self-righteous judgemental-ness, and it's quite frankly disappointing to hear from people who normally try to consider things with more depth and clarity. :(
I feel like your responses to some of the things we disagree about lately have been full of judgement and it makes me kind of sad. It seems like you are the one who is not thinking about things with depth and clarity. I've actually learned a lot from the responses in this thread and I'd like to thank Hsu and The Man (up until the last sentence of his most recent post) for presenting the rationale for their views in a respectable way, even if I don't agree with them.

Crop
02-08-2014, 06:10 PM
Which thereby distinguishes it from heroin, which poses fewer health risks than cigarettes as long as you continually inject the same amount.

While that may be true, I think it's missing the point. With consistent heroin use, your body eventually becomes used to the effects and the high isn't as good. That's why users have to have a little more, or take it more often to chase the high. Thus the spiral is born.
Heroin isn't some misunderstood drug, it is deadly and utterly abhorrent.

Shorty
02-08-2014, 06:12 PM
Crop makes an excellent point. Addicts aren't rationalizing to themselves to maintain their doping amounts in order to avoid risks with a dangerous substance.

Spuuky
02-08-2014, 06:46 PM
I've had the option to take ecstasy before. And you know what? It's a fairly safe drug. The worst that happens is usually overheating or dehydration. But there is a small, very small, chance that you might have seizure or stroke cause of it. Now if I took some for recreational fun and ended up in the hospital, you know whose fault that would be? smurfing MINE. Jesus smurfing Christ on a stick. It would be my god damn fault. If the person I had got it from gave me some sort of shotty laced version of the drug then it would be that persons fault too. But just because multiple people might be at fault doesn't mean that the responsibility still wasn't mine own as well. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?Is it "your fault" if you take aspirin, have a terrible (extremely low percentage, but technically possible) fatal reaction to it and die? Is it "your fault" if you encounter peanuts for the first time in your life, eat them, and die of an allergic reaction? Would I be right in saying "you know the risks, Jesus H, take responsibility"?

Quindiana Jones
02-08-2014, 06:47 PM
Formal request for drugs talk to be taken out of the RIP thread. (http://home.eyesonff.com/eyes-each-other/154608-probably-quite-quickly-ending-thread-drugs.html#post3373362)

Del Murder
02-08-2014, 07:00 PM
I've had the option to take ecstasy before. And you know what? It's a fairly safe drug. The worst that happens is usually overheating or dehydration. But there is a small, very small, chance that you might have seizure or stroke cause of it. Now if I took some for recreational fun and ended up in the hospital, you know whose fault that would be? smurfing MINE. Jesus smurfing Christ on a stick. It would be my god damn fault. If the person I had got it from gave me some sort of shotty laced version of the drug then it would be that persons fault too. But just because multiple people might be at fault doesn't mean that the responsibility still wasn't mine own as well. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?Is it "your fault" if you take aspirin, have a terrible (extremely low percentage, but technically possible) fatal reaction to it and die? Is it "your fault" if you encounter peanuts for the first time in your life, eat them, and die of an allergic reaction? Would I be right in saying "you know the risks, Jesus H, take responsibility"?
Not unless you bought them from some guy on the street. I'll refrain from discussing this further since Quin made another thread for it.

RIP PSH. Sorry for derailing your thread, but The Man started it!

Thinking back on his career, I don't remember a lot of leading roles Hoffman had, but I think that was the beauty of his work. You don't remember Phillip Seymour Hoffman being great in some movie, you just remember movies with him in it being good. He owned his roles so fully that they seamlessly fit in with the rest of the film and brought the whole thing to a new level. Films like The Big Lebowski, Moneyball, and the recent Hunger Games films all aren't PSH-heavy, but his presence gave the movies a sort of credibility that would be lacking without him.

Quindiana Jones
02-08-2014, 07:48 PM
Should The Man be made illegal in Lounge threads? Discuss.

I never paid much attention to his roles, which as Del says, is actually kind of a compliment and is in line with what everybody says about him as an actor. He isn't PSH As..., he just is that character. He was never some big AAA actor who overwhelms the character they're meant to portray, he just blended seamlessly.

Reminds me of Heath Ledger actually, and not because of the drugs thing. He had a similar class of acting, I always thought. Excellent actors to get addicted to hard drugs it seems, much like the best comedians often suffer from depression. Weird.

The Man
02-08-2014, 07:52 PM
A lot of comedians have had problems with drugs, too. I suspect the type that gets into being excellent performers may just be unusually susceptible to addiction.