|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead today
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-06-2014 01:03 AM
The problem I have with a law enforcement policy which says "If your criminal activity crosses a certain line, then we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks" (in this case, rounding up the dealers who sold Hoffman the drugs with which he killed himself), then you are effectively sending the message that just as long as your criminal activity does not cross that line, you'll be left alone to get on with it.
The city I lived in immediately before I left Britain (as did many others in the country) had a bizarre annual tradition: the "Christmas anti-drink drive campaign". It would be announced and widely publicized that between certain dates, the police would be out in force and would stop and breathalyze drivers at random.
No-one seemed to take on board that what this was effectively doing was telling everyone who habitually drove while drunk that just as long as they refrained from doing so during the Christmas campaign, they would be left alone and the police would make no serious attempt to catch them. On one level I can see why the police did this: Christmas is exactly the time of year when people tend to drink more than usual, drive at unusual times and to unusual places and so on. As a result, the number of accidents caused by DUI always spiked. But on another it's sending the message that under most circumstances, DUI is acceptable.
Returning to Hoffman, it's obvious that the authorities knew who the dealers supplying him were (because they'd arrested them almost before his body was cold) and, for whatever reason, had left them on the streets. If I was a drug dealer, the message I would take away from this episode is that I should avoid selling anything to celebs, but just as long as I play by these rules, I'll be left alone by the authorities.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 02-06-2014 07:46 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
The problem I have with a law enforcement policy which says "If your criminal activity crosses a certain line, then we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks" (in this case, rounding up the dealers who sold Hoffman the drugs with which he killed himself), then you are effectively sending the message that just as long as your criminal activity does not cross that line, you'll be left alone to get on with it.
I don't see it that way and I don't get the impression you are implying, we don't know what the police are up to do and what they are pursuing.
quote: Leo Enticknap
On one level I can see why the police did this: Christmas is exactly the time of year when people tend to drink more than usual, drive at unusual times and to unusual places and so on. As a result, the number of accidents caused by DUI always spiked. But on another it's sending the message that under most circumstances, DUI is acceptable.
Again, that is not the message I get. Part of a drunk driving blitz is to prevent the drunk driving behavior, not just catch it. The average person does/may not drink and drive on a regular occasion, they don't go to Christmas parties, New Years events, or Super Bowls on a regular basis, the blitz is targeted to these people and having the message in the media at this time is effective.
You might interpret it differently but that is the why I interpret the blitzes.
quote: Leo Enticknap
If so, the police probably interviewed Hoffman's PA(s) as their first step, and identified the drug dealers from them.
And you know this how exactly?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-06-2014 11:45 AM
He doesn't know, that's why he said "probably." But if you were a cop digging for info, you would interview anyone and everyone who had any kind of association with the dead guy. A personal assistant would be an obvious interview.
quote: Leo Enticknap
the impresion I've got is a loud-and-clear message from the police they're only going to take action against the dealers if their activities make the headlines. If you manage to stay below the radar, no problem.
That's always the impression I've gotten, especially when it comes to celebrities. The "cooler" you are, the more you can get away with. Look at Willie Nelson....he talks about weed, writes songs about it, there are pictures of him smoking weed, his bus is supposedly loaded with the stuff...so why aren't the cops investigating him left and right? But almost nobody is cooler than Willie, so he is more or less left alone, except for maybe the occasional token bust.
The media doesn't help this situation any. They glorify people like Willie, Biggie, Dre and any few dozen other drug-using celebrities, until something "bad" happens to somebody like Hoffman and then it's a big tragedy all of a sudden.
The media just decides who they want to destroy this month and that's how they pick their targets. It's based on the cool factor. If you're super-cool, you're left alone. Right now the big target is Justin Beiber. Sure he seems a little out of control, but he's no worse than any couple of dozen other celebrity types -- it's just because he's young and very popular right now. His behavior is obviously no worse than Miley Cyrus' recently -- but they're leaving her alone right now because Bieber is less cool than she is, at the moment, probably because he's more underage than she is. In a few weeks they'll move on to try to destroy somebody else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-06-2014 12:23 PM
The media is guilty for being very inconsistent in how they handle serious issues, like drug & alcohol abuse. They do glorify certain celebrities well known for their illegal indulgences, like Willie Nelson or Snoop Dogg. They're given a free pass while an average person caught with the same contraband would be given a long term prison sentence and fined into poverty.
Ultimately it's political bullshit, and the general public deserves a GIANT amount of blame for it. When a nobody gets busted holding a bunch of weed or whatever that guy can go to jail with no questions asked. When a celebrity gets busted for the same thing that celebrity's fan base goes ape shit. Police agencies and politicians cave into public pressure. It also goes without saying celebrities tend to have far better, far more expensive attorneys. For some municipalities, it's a hell of a lot less expensive for the taxpayers to give an ill-behaved celebrity a slap on the wrist than to spend millions on a criminal trial.
quote: Leo Enticknap
The problem I have with a law enforcement policy which says "If your criminal activity crosses a certain line, then we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks" (in this case, rounding up the dealers who sold Hoffman the drugs with which he killed himself), then you are effectively sending the message that just as long as your criminal activity does not cross that line, you'll be left alone to get on with it.
I don't think the situation is quite that simple.
Illegal drug use is so wide spread that no city has the law enforcement manpower to fight it properly. Add to that the fact most city jails are crowded beyond legal limits and prisons are bursting at the seams with inmate populations. In the end, law enforcement has to pick its battles and fight the small ones it can actually win.
Overall, the so-called "war on drugs" is being fought by the wrong people. More police and prisons aren't going to help at all. It takes community involvement attacking the demand side of the drug trade to do any good. The war on drugs could be won very quickly if the general public removed the factors enabling drug users to use in the first place. If a person had to be piss tested to hold a job anywhere and be piss tested to get food stamps or other government benefits that person would have an extremely difficult time trying to support any type of drug habit. With no money coming in, that person's friends and family members would get tired of his mooching off them very quickly. Right now we have system that absolutely enables illegal drug use. The system gives them a choice to do so. There's a bunch of drug users claiming disability and drawing SSI! You can stay home, get high, live on the government dime and when you need some extra money just rob or burglarize someone. That kind of existence is getting handed down one generation after another.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-06-2014 04:10 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
Don't more people die each year from prescription drug-related problems than illegal drug problems?
At least 1/3 of all drugs sold illegally on the street are prescription drugs. The illegal sale and use of prescription drugs is the primary source for prescription drug overdose deaths.
quote: Joe Redifer
What we need are more laws. Yeah, that's the ticket.
A hands off "Libertarian" style approach isn't going to work. Utopia can only exist if everyone in society behaves in a perfect, responsible manner. There's absolutely no way that's ever going to happen. Some people can behave responsibly without the government acting like mommy & daddy to them. Other people are such pieces of shit they have to be told that it's against the law to murder, rape, steal, etc. and be punished when they break those rules. We wouldn't need any laws, police, prisons, etc. if it weren't for a lot of really shitty quality people out there. Libertarian minded people love to gripe about laws and government intrusion, but they ought to be directing their disgust at the people who are making the laws necessary in the first place.
We don't need more laws when it comes to battling substance abuse. The public's demand for drugs has to be attacked in more creative ways. I've already mentioned the various ways drug testing can be used to greatly curb demand. The safety nets drug users rely on to support their lifestyles have to be removed. They're only going to choose to get clean when they have no other choice but to do so.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic