# A Toast to Philip Seymour Hoffman



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Truly one of the greatest actors of the day. 

I, for one, will truly miss his artistry.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You don't have to miss it.

Somebody filmed it!! 

I saw Capote and enjoyed it.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

I heard the other day, as folks were eulogizing the man, that PSH would have just gotten better as he aged...gaining gravitas like Christopher Plummer. I don't know about the comparison to CP, but I can agree that it would have been nice to see him develop his craft over the next couple of decades or three.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That guy had one helluva stash. :icon_smile:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> That guy had one helluva stash. :icon_smile:


Your comment got me to wondering as to what the "normal " consumption level of heroin might be. I've seen reports of 50-70 bags being found in the guy's apartment. Is that usually a 2 month supply or enough for a year? I do realise that this dépends on the individual but I would guess there's a "happy median" that most regular users fall into.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Your comment got me to wondering as to what the "normal " consumption level of heroin might be. I've seen reports of 50-70 bags. Is that usually a 2 month supply or enough for a year? I do realise that this dépends on the individual but I would guess there's a "happy median" that most regular users fall into.


Too many variables to make a reasonable assessment - what weight does each bag contain, what level of purity, what is the tolerance of the user, what is the use - recreational or habitual?

One thing is for certain, in England, discovery of such a large amount of individual packages on one's premises would result in a 'possession with intent to supply' conviction.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Too many variables to make a reasonable assessment - what weight does each bag contain, what level of purity, what is the tolerance of the user, what is the use - recreational or habitual?
> 
> One thing is for certain, in England, discovery of such a large amount of individual packages on one's premises would result in a 'possession with intent to supply' conviction.


Yeah, I was absolutely astonished that PSH's friends, arrested with about 125 bags of heroin in each's apartment, only got possession charges. Usually, in America, if a moderate to large quantity of drugs is found in a state that is already broken into parts and packaged, it is an automatic intent to distribute charge.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Why prosecute??

Drug crimes are victimless!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why prosecute??
> 
> Drug crimes are victimless!!


What? We should have mandatory drug testing for all people and give the duggies at least 50 years in jail for daring to do to their body what they want. It would have been so much better for Hoffman to have the taxpayers support a long jail term versus this, right?... I mean dead at 47 can't be better than being caged for 50 years for doing something to yourself, can it? ooops. Wait. It is better in many people's thoughts.

I think we should also prosecute for food related deaths because they sure aren't victimless either. There are alot more people killed every year thanks to McDonald's than Big Daddy H. I understand that it might be your body but my opinion matters more than yours, so you should do what I say or spend some time in jail. What right do you have to eat ice cream when it's been proven to highly unhealthy? It's obviously coke's fault that you're diabetic. It's the fault of Hershy that my wife's fat.

Alcohol industry...Those bastards should probably all be executed. I mean is it any Wonder my generation grew up to be alcoholic smokers when we had Spuds McKensie & Camel Joe as role models in High School. Prosecute. Oh wait...My generation aren't a bunch of smoking alcoholics. There is a certain percentage that are, but that the same with the newer générations that weren't influenced by such bad marketing ploys. Just as min any other generation, there will be those that get ahold of something that will kill them. It's sad. It bites for the family. But welcome to real world. 47 is a lot longer than many other people have had on the planet (and of no fault of their own).

Maybe the best thing for society would be to take away all memory of this guy. No grave allowed to remind us of his horrible lifestyle. No statues. We can give the Oscar to the runner up, and erase everything this horrible monster did.

.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That's quite a rambler there, Swiss Miss-ter!!

I suppose if the risks of red meat, tobacco, alcohol and herion were equal, they would all be treated equally under the law and you'd have a point.

But they aren't, so you don't!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's quite a rambler there, Swiss Miss-ter!!
> 
> I suppose if the risks of red meat, tobacco, alcohol and herion were equal, they would all be treated equally under the law and you'd have a point.
> 
> But they aren't, so you don't!!


Really? It appears you have no idea as to how politics and lobbying work. Heroin has a lobby of how many millions of dollars that are going to influence the "Policy makers" in washington? How about Tobacco? Red meat? I'd be willing to bet that the red meat industry probably spends more on lobbying than big Tobacco these days. Have you seen anything out of the large farm industry that states they're doing things for your health versus profits? Steriods? Hormones? Less than ideal feed and living conditions for the cattle. etc... HAve you heard of the hospitality industry? Restaurants? these people all have representation through lobbying. Do you? Does heroin ?Why is hemp illegal? Because politicians and businessmen had invested heavily into cotton and didn't want competition from a plant that was superior. We can go on and on...Why are seat belts/car insurance mandatory? Why is the drinking age in the U.S. 21 (versus 16 in Europe)? The people's desire? Nope.. The insurance lobby.

The risks of diet are certainly much more devasting on the general poulation than heroin is with it's relatively few addicts. A few weeks rehab for a couple thousand addicts is hardly the same cost as a lifetime of medical support for those that can't thier fingers out of the candy jar.

If all things were treated equally, judged by there merits (or lack thereof) and then rules & régulations were made, you'd have a point. But they aren't, so you don't.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why prosecute??
> 
> Drug crimes are victimless!!


I never thought that a six word post could elicit a novella-length response...until now.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I never thought that a six word post could elicit a novella-length response...until now.


And I never thought that a 4 paragraph response would be considered "novella-length" but here we are. I guess this is due to modern times & the lack of attention span that comes with having one's nose in a phone/computer all the time. I do hope it's not what the States are now holding as a standard for their education system... (ok. kids please take out you 10 page book containing 40 novellas).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> And I never thought that a 4 paragraph response would be considered "novella-length" but here we are. I guess this is due to modern times & the lack of attention span that comes with having one's nose in a phone/computer all the time. I do hope it's not what the States are now holding as a standard for their education system... (ok. kids please take out you 10 page book containing 40 novellas).


More likely it was because of all the hystrionics packed into them that made it seem as though it was a novella!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> More likely it was because of all the hystrionics packed into them that made it seem as though it was a novella!!


 Well, if someone would like to point out a single thing that I mentioned that isn't true, they're more than welcome but in my point of view, if someone wants to go out & do something that will get them killed it's their darn choice to do so. I 'd feel better about prosecuting parents that convince their children to go get killed in some military action than some guy that sold a dime-bag to an addict that ends up dead. The parents have more influence over the person than a drug dealer.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

justonemore said:


> Well, if someone would like to point out a single thing that I mentioned that isn't true, they're more than welcome but in my point of view, if someone wants to go out & do something that will get them killed it's their darn choice to do so. I 'd feel better about prosecuting parents that convince their children to go get killed in some military action than some guy that sold a dime-bag to an addict that ends up dead. The parents have more influence over the person than a drug dealer.


Realistically, seatbelts are not purely owed to insurance companies and to say so is far too simplistic. If I rear end someone and they aren't wearing their seatbelt and aren't required to and die because of it, I could be looking at jail time for involuntary manslaughter. On the other hand, if they were wearing their seatbelt and easily survive (a likely scenario, really) I'm on the hook for medical and repair bills but no jail time. If the law requires he/she wear a seatbelt and it can be proven that had the seatbelt been worn as was required by law the driver would have survived relatively unscathed, I'm off the hook for the IM charge. Now, if they want to say you aren't required to wear the seatbelt, then they should also amend the laws to prevent someone from being charged with involuntary manslaughter in any event where the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Tilton said:


> Realistically, seatbelts are not purely owed to insurance companies and to say so is far too simplistic. If I rear end someone and they aren't wearing their seatbelt and aren't required to and die because of it, I could be looking at jail time for involuntary manslaughter. On the other hand, if they were wearing their seatbelt and easily survive (a likely scenario, really) I'm on the hook for medical and repair bills but no jail time. If the law requires he/she wear a seatbelt and it can be proven that had the seatbelt been worn as was required by law the driver would have survived relatively unscathed, I'm off the hook for the IM charge. Now, if they want to say you aren't required to wear the seatbelt, then they should also amend the laws to prevent someone from being charged with involuntary manslaughter in any event where the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt.


As long as you were following the "rules" when driving & not in a state of impairment, I wouldn't see why you should be charged with im. Making another law to avoid others gettong a im charge seems not to do anything to improve the situatoon. Belt or not, it's not my fault when a drunk runs a red light. While I always wear mine, I still feel it comes down to individual choice over big insurance. i also don't agree that my freedoms should be compromised in order to allow people to drive recklessly & avoid im charges.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

I liked Hoffman in Red Dragon. But I will say that the one thing that bothered me about his death was reading numerous references to him being a 'genius,' when there's nothing genius about being an addict. It's unfortunate that he died but he was no genius


Sent from my tinfoil hat


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

gaseousclay said:


> I liked Hoffman in Red Dragon. But I will say that the one thing that bothered me about his death was reading numerous references to him being a 'genius,' when there's nothing genius about being an addict. It's unfortunate that he died but he was no genius
> 
> Sent from my tinfoil hat


That's where I draw the line as well.

Like calling an old commie a "great American!!"

Great artist, influential amongst their peers, yes.

Genius junkie??

Patriotic commie??

No.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't think there's anything fundamental about being a heroin addict that prevents one from possessing genius (though I also wouldn't put Hoffman into that category). Just as I don't think there's anything fundamental in Communists (i.e., Party members) that prevents them from being patriotic Americans. 

So long as a Communist is committed to working within our system to encourage the changes he wishes to see, what's unpatriotic about that? It's like saying that someone who opposes abortion can't be patriotic, given that the Supreme Court has ruled in support of a woman's right to choose to have one.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> So long as a Communist is committed to working within our system to encourage the changes he wishes to see, what's unpatriotic about that? It's like saying that someone who opposes abortion can't be patriotic, given that the Supreme Court has ruled in support of a woman's right to choose to have one.


This thread sure is filling up with false equals and analogies!!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This thread sure is filling up with false equals and analogies!!


Are you trying to say a llama is somehow different from an orange?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

So what is there fundamentally about being a member of the Communist Party that prevents one from being a patriot? Serious question.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Individual liberty and central control are diametrically situated, for example private property vs common(state) ownership. A nation of individuals freely entering and leaving the market is diametrically set in relation to a nation in which both internal and external travel, entry and exit of the market, prices/wages, the means of production are the sole realm of distant bureaucracy.
In one men associate freely by choice, in the other men associate by government fiat often at the point of a gun. I dont care to coin a slogan but I am trying to boil this down to the most basic factors, so:

Private property both requires and results in liberty.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Individual liberty and central control are diametrically situated, for example private property vs common(state) ownership. A nation of individuals freely entering and leaving the market is diametrically set in relation to a nation in which both internal and external travel, entry and exit of the market, prices/wages, the means of production are the sole realm of distant bureaucracy.
> In one men associate freely by choice, in the other men associate by government fiat often at the point of a gun. I dont care to coin a slogan but I am trying to boil this down to the most basic factors, so:
> 
> Private property both requires and results in liberty.


If this was intended as a response to my question, I need someone to translate it for me.

Regardless, let me elucidate: I'm very much a free-marketeer, in favor of limited government that doesn't interfere with trade any more than absolutely necessary. Environmental and anti-trust regulations are pretty much all that I see a need for. Nonetheless, I'm acquainted with a great many people who disagree with me on the limited-government front who have served honorably and courageously in battle to defend the USA. The fact that their vision of what the USA "means" isn't completely congruent with mine doesn't justify my accusing them of being unpatriotic, in my view.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> If this was intended as a response to my question, I need someone to translate it for me.
> 
> Regardless, let me elucidate: I'm very much a free-marketeer, in favor of limited government that doesn't interfere with trade any more than absolutely necessary. Environmental and anti-trust regulations are pretty much all that I see a need for. Nonetheless, I'm acquainted with a great many people who disagree with me on the limited-government front who have served honorably and courageously in battle to defend the USA. The fact that their vision of what the USA "means" isn't completely congruent with mine doesn't justify my accusing them of being unpatriotic, in my view.


So you know a bunch of ex-servicemen who are Communists? You're fudging a bunch of issues.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Wow! Plenty of high blood pressures here. A little hit of Heroin would mellow you right out. :icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Wow! Plenty of high blood pressures here. A little hit of Heroin would mellow you right out. :icon_smile:


I prefer death by a thousand cheeseburgers!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> So what is there fundamentally about being a member of the Communist Party that prevents one from being a patriot? Serious question.


Always look at what Commie do, not what Commie say.

If we can all agree that freedom of speech, press and religion are the ideals of the USA and free persons everywhere, then we can see what Commie do in the USSR, Red China, N. Koren and Cuba, among others and conclude that Communism is contrary to the interests of free persons everywhere.

And buying turkeys for poor people on Thanksgiving or being a swell guy doesn't change that.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Always look at what Commie do, not what Commie say.
> 
> If we can all agree that freedom of speech, press and religion are the ideals of the USA and free persons everywhere, then we can see what Commie do in the USSR, Red China, N. Koren and Cuba, among others and conclude that Communism is contrary to the interests of free persons everywhere.
> 
> And buying turkeys for poor people on Thanksgiving or being a swell guy doesn't change that.


Hmm.... because the American government would never say one thing and do another, right?

Those 'freedoms' that you mention are being eroded by the USA not only in their own country but worldwide.

Keep on rockin' in the free world!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> If this was intended as a response to my question, I need someone to translate it for me.
> 
> Regardless, let me elucidate: I'm very much a free-marketeer, in favor of limited government that doesn't interfere with trade any more than absolutely necessary. Environmental and anti-trust regulations are pretty much all that I see a need for. Nonetheless, I'm acquainted with a great many people who disagree with me on the limited-government front who have served honorably and courageously in battle to defend the USA.


 LOL Pretend you cant understand a straight answer then move directly to changing the subject,,, as per the playbook. Your question had nothing to do with minor disagreements WRT the size and scope of government, you may pretend otherwise I wont. Your question is not even concerned with liberal vs moderate but as you posted_ Communists (i.e., Party members)_ . Certainly a far cry from what you have presented in this post.


> The fact that their vision of what the USA "means" isn't completely congruent with mine doesn't justify my accusing them of being unpatriotic, in my view.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Always look at what Commie do, not what Commie say.
> 
> If we can all agree that freedom of speech, press and religion are the ideals of the USA and free persons everywhere, then we can see what Commie do in the USSR, Red China, N. Koren and Cuba, among others and conclude that Communism is contrary to the interests of free persons everywhere.
> 
> And buying turkeys for poor people on Thanksgiving or being a swell guy doesn't change that.


I don't see how membership in the US Communist Party equates to actions by Stalin, Mao, Castro or Kim Jung Whatever, just as I don't see how being a die-hard capitalist equates to actions by Kenneth Lay of Enron. In my experience, most averred communists are disgusted by the excesses of the dictators in those nations but remain convinced that they could create the Workers' Paradise here if only more people agreed with them. They are hopeless (and usually feckless) idealists, and that's how I see Pete Seeger. I don't think most of them understand that Stalin (et al) is the inevitable result of their political philosophy.

Further discussion is probably pointless. We disagree, as reasonable people can do. We certainly do not disagree on the critical ideals of freedom of expression and a free press.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> LOL Pretend you cant understand a straight answer then move directly to changing the subject,,, as per the playbook. Your question had nothing to do with minor disagreements WRT the size and scope of government, you may pretend otherwise I wont. Your question is not even concerned with liberal vs moderate but as you posted_ Communists (i.e., Party members)_ . Certainly a far cry from what you have presented in this post.


I'm not clear on why insults are necessary, but I continue not to really understand your arguments. You obviously think you gave a "straight answer;" I honestly replied that I didn't understand it.

In my view, whether or not one is a member of a particular political group doesn't disqualify them from being a patriot. You disagree. So be it. Changing the subject now, since that seems to be a sensitive point that requires advance notice.

RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman. The real victims in this mess are his family.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> I don't see how membership in the US Communist Party equates to actions by Stalin, Mao, Castro or Kim Jung Whatever, just as I don't see how being a die-hard capitalist equates to actions by Kenneth Lay of Enron. In my experience, most averred communists are disgusted by the excesses of the dictators in those nations but remain convinced that they could create the Workers' Paradise here if only more people agreed with them. They are hopeless (and usually feckless) idealists, and that's how I see Pete Seeger. I don't think most of them understand that Stalin (et al) is the inevitable result of their political philosophy.
> 
> Further discussion is probably pointless. We disagree, as reasonable people can do. We certainly do not disagree on the critical ideals of freedom of expression and a free press.


1) Some people are born useful idiots, others work hard to become one. While you may make excuses for them, I never will.

2) I was hoping that would move you!!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Some people are born useful idiots, others work hard to become one. While you may make excuses for them, I never will.


Nearly all of us are idiots at one time or another. My aim is to have at least intermittent periods when I am not.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Hmm.... because the American government would never say one thing and do another, right?
> 
> Those 'freedoms' that you mention are being eroded by the USA not only in their own country but worldwide.
> 
> Keep on rockin' in the free world!


And that is why, my friend, I would remind you that *extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me 
remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> And that is why, my friend, I would remind you that *extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me
> remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!!


Extremism in defense of liberty? Remind me how that works, exactly? Is it something like this?

What would you do if you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I've GOT to see that movie!!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> I'm not clear on why insults are necessary, but I continue not to really understand your arguments. You obviously think you gave a "straight answer;" I honestly replied that I didn't understand it.
> 
> In my view, whether or not one is a member of a particular political group doesn't disqualify them from being a patriot. You disagree. So be it. Changing the subject now, since that seems to be a sensitive point that requires advance notice.
> 
> RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman. The real victims in this mess are his family.


Since reporting what you posted is insulting the fault is entirely your own.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> I don't think most of them understand that Stalin (et al) is the inevitable result of their political philosophy.


I think if we know anything at this point it is that Mao, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, etc. are not true communists but autocrats using communism as a device to gain support.

True communism can't have a leader who enjoys power and wealthy thanks to those below him - it is fundamentally opposed to the idea of communism. The closest we've ever come are the Kibbutz in Israel. Mao, Stalin, et al were probably further from the realization of true communism than the US is right now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I think if we know anything at this point it is that Mao, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, etc. are not true communists but autocrats using communism as a device to gain support.
> 
> True communism can't have a leader who enjoys power and wealthy thanks to those below him - it is fundamentally opposed to the idea of communism. The closest we've ever come are the Kibbutz in Israel. Mao, Stalin, et al were probably further from the realization of true communism than the US is right now.


I have to admit.

The only way to keep Commie hope alive is to reject everything your lying eyes have told you.

Believe every self described oppressive Communist regime was a false Communist regime.

And that a True and enlightened Commust regime will come and free everyone of our chains!!

LOL!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I have to admit.
> 
> The only way to keep Commie hope alive is to reject everything your lying eyes have told you.
> 
> ...


*There's Reds under the bed!!! *_*high pitched shriek*


_


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I enjoy a good laugh and making fun as much as the next guy.

But it doesn't refute the facts!! 

Commies and Freedom don't mix.

Smack kills. 

Joe Friday rocks!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I enjoy a good laugh and making fun as much as the next guy.
> 
> But it doesn't refute the facts!!
> 
> ...


Capitalism and Freedom don't mix.

Smack is not inherently deadly.

Just the facts ma'am.

:icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Just because something is wrong 66/100s of the time,

Doesn't mean it isn't right 99 44/100s of the time. 

(Exaggeration brought to you by Ivory soap)

But you get the picture!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just because something is wrong 66/100s of the time,
> 
> Doesn't mean it isn't right 99 44/100s of the time.
> 
> ...


Heroin is a benign substance.

I highly recommend this book:

Which is available for cents but will profoundly improve your grasp of the subject https://www.amazon.com/dp/057114506X/

It is not mere polemic - the author is a highly respected neurobiologist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Kohn


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Heroin is a benign substance.


Under which controlled circumstance is heroin benign??

Is physical dependence and withdrawal benign??

How are the benigh qualities of heroin duplicated in common usage resulting in misery and death for so many of it's users??

I already know that IF it is more pure, IF it is not injected, IF it is done recreationally, just once a week or so, it is less harmful.

But that isn't how people wind up dead, is it??


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Under which controlled circumstance is heroin benign??
> 
> Is physical dependence and withdrawal benign??
> 
> ...


Oh, come come, fine fellow. It is possible to overdose on salt.

Read the book. :icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

A trick question!!

Overdose, no.

A death more common and insidious the heroin overdose??

Of course!!

https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2011/june/salt-solution-how-to-cut-sodium-from-your-diet/

For years, doctors have been saying a diet high in salt is bad for your heart.

Heart disease kills someone in America every 23 seconds. High blood pressure is often the culprit, which can be caused by too much salt, or sodium, in the diet.

Now, research also links salt to diseases such as cancer, diabetes, dementia, and kidney disease.

*Ban salt, make heroin legal!! *


----------



## Annette (Mar 12, 2014)

Tilton said:


> Truly one of the greatest actors of the day.
> 
> I, for one, will truly miss his artistry.


His theatre work is simply amazing.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Philip Seymour Hoffman receives a standing ovation, the moment Brandt appears on screen, at the recent Lebowskifest in Los Angeles.








> Goodnight, sweet prince.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Man, what a lot of hate for junkies on this thread.

Charlie Parker. Ray Charles. Robert Downey, Jr. Miles Davis. Samuel Coleridge. John Keats. And those are just a few. If we open it up to substances other than opiates, we have Stephen King, Lenny Bruce, Johnny Cash and a whole bunch more. We can quibble, but as a whole, these folks all had genius to varying degrees. Certainly, they led productive lives and created much joy. The thing is, it's entirely possible to be a junkie for decades without anyone catching on. Happens all the time.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Man, what a lot of hate for junkies on this thread.
> 
> Charlie Parker. Ray Charles. Robert Downey, Jr. Miles Davis. Samuel Coleridge. John Keats. And those are just a few. If we open it up to substances other than opiates, we have Stephen King, Lenny Bruce, Johnny Cash and a whole bunch more. We can quibble, but as a whole, these folks all had genius to varying degrees. Certainly, they led productive lives and created much joy. The thing is, it's entirely possible to be a junkie for decades without anyone catching on. Happens all the time.


Well obviously those that are addicts and can't contribute to society within defined terms should be dismissed and thrown to the curb. It's the Christian thing to do afterall. Nevermind that many families will get caught up in it at one point or another. Just deny it, hide it, and blame the addict for soemthing that has been shown to be beyond their control. We can all pay extra in medical bills for those that decide to overeat (quite a few Americans) but those that get caught up in other addictions are obviously losers that have no control. What was it that "Jesus" said? "That what you do to the least of my brothers you do to me as well"?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Man, what a lot of hate for junkies on this thread.
> 
> Charlie Parker. Ray Charles. Robert Downey, Jr. Miles Davis. Samuel Coleridge. John Keats. And those are just a few. If we open it up to substances other than opiates, we have Stephen King, Lenny Bruce, Johnny Cash and a whole bunch more. We can quibble, but as a whole, these folks all had genius to varying degrees. Certainly, they led productive lives and created much joy. *The thing is, it's entirely possible to be a junkie for decades without anyone catching on. Happens all the time*.


32r'n'r, old fellow, is this a confession?

I have always maintained that Heroin is Trad. :thumbs-up:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> 32r'n'r, old fellow, is this a confession?
> 
> I have always maintained that Heroin is Trad. :thumbs-up:


No, but I once dated a heroin addict. Gives one a brand-new perspective on the issue.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ You weren't tempted to try it then?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^ You weren't tempted to try it then?


No, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't be boasting about it on the Internet.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> No, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't be boasting about it on the Internet.


I'll take that as a 'yes' then. :thumbs-up:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> I'll take that as a 'yes' then. :thumbs-up:


"Test me, test me, why don't you arrest me?"
--J. Garcia


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> "Test me, test me, why don't you arrest me?"
> --J. Garcia


Being as you mentioned ol' Lou in our engagement on another thread:






I have made a very big decision
I'm going to try to nullify my life.


----------

