Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead today

This is topic Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead today in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006950

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-02-2014, 12:59 PM:

CNN.com has a headline saying Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead of an apparent drug overdose.

Edited to correct spelling of PSH

[ 02-04-2014, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-02-2014, 01:24 PM:

I saw the news a little while ago. Pretty sad. The guy was a great actor. Too bad he had to wind up as yet another substance abuse death.

It kind of a funny thing how overdose deaths only make the news when a celebrity is involved. They're actually very commonplace. When people think of deaths involving drug use they usually think of street violence. The truth is far more people die by their own hand through substance abuse than are killed in violence related to drugs.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-02-2014, 02:08 PM:

wow, I didn't think he was the type to be the type to OD.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-02-2014, 02:39 PM:

That's a talent I'll miss. RIP Phillip.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-02-2014, 02:42 PM:

Totally sucks. A great actor who was fun to watch even in bad movies. I always looked forward to whatever he was doing next. We've had the Capote banner hanging in and watching over our lobby for years. Damn, damn, damn.

Oh, and it is Philip Seymour Hoffman (one "L" in Philip and no "e" in Seymour).

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 02-02-2014, 05:23 PM:

When are these Dumb-A$$ Actors/Celebrities gonna finally get the Message that they aren't Smarter than DRUGS. [puke]

They all give the same excuse that they have control of their Drug Habit. Well go down the List of Celebs that ever said that and you'll either find them in Prison or the Graveyard. [Mad]

Excuse my insensitivity, but these People have Lives that most People can only Dream of and they FLUSH it all down the TOILET with these F**KEN Drugs that they seem to not be able to get through Life without. Lots of ordinary People out there with tradgedies in their Family and Lives and they don't all run to the Booze Bottle or the Drug Dealers for a way out [thumbsdown]

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-02-2014, 06:18 PM:

He was 22 years on the wagon and only 2 years ago went into rehab because he felt he was gonna lose the battle.
Talents like him usually have big demons.
His character in Punch Drunk Love actually scared me out of my seat for a moment!
Kinda thing Joe Pesci did for me in Casino and Goodfellas!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-02-2014, 07:23 PM:

quote: Steve Matz
Lots of ordinary People out there with tradgedies in their Family and Lives and they don't all run to the Booze Bottle or the Drug Dealers for a way out

Most of them don't, but some do. As Bobby points out, we hear all about the celebs who get into substance abuse problems, but if you're not Hoffman (or Bieber, or Winehouse, or whoever), you won't end up on the front page of a news site. Although the fact that the cost of these drugs isn't an issue for millionaire celebs possibly puts tham at greater risk than the general population.

Returning to topic, he was amazing as Truman Capote. In fact, the film made such an impression on me that pretty much the first thing I did after getting home from seeing it was to go on Amazon and order a copy of In Cold Blood. From what I've read in Hoffman's obituaries, they strike me as similar characters: a lot of raw talent, able to understand people in a very different background and setting to their own, but constrained by a lack of interpersonal skills - and in Capote's case, the ability to make enemies easily.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-02-2014, 09:29 PM:

I won't be too judgmental against anyone who has actually fought a battle with hard core drug addiction, other than perhaps saying they should have known better. I mean, we've been seeing people drop dead from this shit in a high profile manner for more than half a century now. Anyone just starting a junk habit now is a fucking moron and I absolutely will not be sorry for saying that.

Hoffman's death is precisely the thing I think of first when I hear some people cry out that all drugs no matter how hard should be legalized. They ALWAYS approach the issue from the very narrow prism of stopping street violence. The problem is street violence is very small compared to the far larger problem of substance abuse deaths. Far more people die from drug abuse than die from being involved in bad drug deals.

Just take legal drugs in consideration. Last year the United States had around 13,000 homicides. That's nowhere near half the homicide level for the US in 1980. Nearly 17,000 Americans died of liver failure from long term alcoholism the same year. Tens of thousands of Americans die from drug overdoses every year.

The media always likes to let us know how many people in Mexico died over the past 5 years in drug cartel violence. They will never let it be known that in 1 year substance abuse deaths in the US would outweigh those 5 year homicide totals in Mexico. They're biased. They want all drugs legal and uncontrolled. Never mind how many people the open policy might kill.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-03-2014, 12:41 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
... people cry out that all drugs no matter how hard should be legalized. They ALWAYS approach the issue from the very narrow prism of stopping street violence.

Agreed completely. Having just finished watching a re-run of Ken Burns's prohibition documentaries on PBS, the concluding show made the interesting point that prohibition has gone down in the mainstream history books as a failed social engineering experiment, because it caused and sustained a big growth in organized crime. However, deaths from alcohol-related liver disease fell between half and two-thirds during the period the Eighteenth Amendment was in force, and deaths from people doing stupid things while drunk (to themselves and/or others) probably fell by a similar amount. So seen as a public health experiment, prohibition was a huge success. It would be interesting to compare the number of lives saved and improved by the public health benefits of prohibition to those ended and damaged by the organized crime that came with it.

The other assumption of those who argue for the legalization of currently banned drugs I'm a bit dubious about is that if that legalization takes place, the crime gangs that currently produce and distribute this stuff will all throw away their guns, set up shop in some legitimate business, do their tax returns like good citizens each year and live happily ever after. I suspect that they would find some other illicit business activity that offers much higher profit margins than any legal one.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 02-03-2014, 01:03 PM:

Celebrity deaths usually happen in threes.
I was waiting for the other two (or four) shoes to drop, but a friend who
is an expert in these metaphysical superstitions tells me that in this case,
there is an exception because of the "Three Name Rule" which says that
when a celebrity who is known by three names dies, it counts as 3 deaths.
Middle initials don't count. It must be 3 names. (So Michael J. Fox or
Francis X. Bushman would be exceptions to the three name rule execption)

I've confirmed this on the internet, so it must be true. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 02-03-2014, 01:11 PM:

Total agreement with Mr H people who do drugs, I have no time for whatsoever, if they go, they go, I don't care, and yes, my family was taken to hell and back by one of my family members, he nearly caused my brother to take suicide, I told him what I thought of him, haven't seen him for yrs.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 02-03-2014, 01:29 PM:

Well the internet through no fault of its own has helped Drug Addiction to probably its highest point in modern history. You can buy almost anything you want from MEXICAN PHARMACIES with anything that remotely looks like a Prescription Real or Bogus.
Also because of the Greed of Pharmacutical Companies, many people with legitimate needs for prescription medicine have to go to Canada or Mexico for a Generic Version.

I grew up in 50's and 60's when Barbituates,LSD,etc was going Strong. Maybe my decision to stay away from these Type drugs was my Mother as a Registered Nurse working in the local ST.Vincents
hospital telling me countless times of young teenagers dying in front of her in the Emergency Room from overdoses. She would come home Crying sometimes probably seeing these kids that were my age Die so needlessly from this Garbage.

We all make choices in our Lives and many of those choices if acted on at the spur of the moment rather than thought out will always come back eventually to bite us. Not a matter of if; but when!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-03-2014, 03:12 PM:

quote: Jim Cassedy
Celebrity deaths usually happen in threes.

Depends on when you start and stop counting, of course [Wink]

Pete Seeger, Maxmilian Schell, PSH makes three within a week. If someone else dies tomorrow, do you just start counting over?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-03-2014, 03:35 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
The other assumption of those who argue for the legalization of currently banned drugs I'm a bit dubious about is that if that legalization takes place, the crime gangs that currently produce and distribute this stuff will all throw away their guns, set up shop in some legitimate business, do their tax returns like good citizens each year and live happily ever after.

I am all for legalizing most drugs, right now the fact that drugs are illegal makes it big and very profitable. The high price of drugs is led by demand and there a lot of people who want/demand drugs. If drugs were simply regulated and the price was reduced it would benefit everyone. There is so much crime involved with drugs and that crime is caused by the high price it takes to obtain/distribute and use these illicit drugs.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 02-03-2014, 04:17 PM:

As Steve mentioned above, life is about choices. We all make choices and we all have to live with the consequences. The problem is stupid people make stupid choices and using hard drugs is one of them.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-03-2014, 04:51 PM:

The pro-legalization crowd often spin their point of view on the notion that drug users are mature grown-ups who have absolute, full control over their habits. They can quit at any time. Naturally, that's bullshit. Rational human will is only so strong in the face of a serious addiction to hard drugs.

In one interview Philip Seymour Hoffman said, bluntly, he would have been dead if he had the same access to money and drugs afforded to some of the better looking, better paid popular young actors.

The idea that legalizing hard drugs will reduce the danger is pure fantasy. Here's one fact: most overdose deaths occur via prescription drug abuse -controlled yet legal drugs.

Marijuana is the only drug I could go along with on legalizing. On its own Marijuana is not physically addictive. With that being said, I'll throw in my observation that every pot user I've known has used all kinds of other harder drugs. Pot alone simply isn't enough for most drug users.

Legalizing pot won't get rid of the illegal street drug trade. The only way to remove the criminal element from the drug business is by having no controls at all on any kind of drugs, including prescription drugs. As I said before, the crime problem surrounding drug use is very minor in comparison to a far larger substance abuse problem our media continues to hide at any opportunity. Legalizing many hard drugs and removing controls on prescription drugs would make an already enormous problem a whole lot worse.

And then there's no guarantee the crime would stop. Even if many drugs were legalized a lot of businesses would refuse to hire drug users. My workplace has a company-wide random drug screening policy. That won't go away if Oklahoma legalizes recreational pot use. We have different types of liability insurance policies to consider, not to mention regulations from DOT that mandate screenings for our crane truck drivers. In the end, an already large group of unemployable people will grow and strain our social services sector. They will resort to all kinds of crime to support their habits since they can't hold real jobs, be it robbery, burglary, prostitution, etc.

Health care costs are already bad enough in the United States as it is. Drug legalization will increase health care demand and make prices rise even higher. Insurance premiums for all kinds of things would be sure to rise too with a greater share of the population indulging in high risk activities like drug abuse.

We need to be attacking this problem head on rather than simply giving up, which is what broad legalization would do. I'm not for warehousing millions of non-violent drug offenders. That is a huge waste of money. But a better effort must be made to help drug users quit and lead healthier, less costly life styles.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-03-2014, 05:48 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
stupid people make stupid choices and using hard drugs is one of them

So are soft drugs a less, more or not a stupid choice at all?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-03-2014, 06:30 PM:

Once again, I'm with Bobby.

Choosing the right legal response to a given drug basically means one of four choices.

1 - totally illegal with active enforcement, e.g. heroin, crystal meth, alcohol in some Islamic theocracies and cannabis in some Asian countries with a big production/smuggling problem.
2 - totally illegal but without serious attempts at enforcement, e.g. cannabis in most countries, and absinthe and stevia in some.
3 - legal but regulated (e.g. by age restriction, taxation and/or a professional gatekeeper), e.g. alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs.
4 - legal and unregulated, e.g. caffeine and non-prescription medicines.

As a general rule, a given substance hasn't ended up in the category it has by default: an active decision has been made by lawmakers in any given society. I guess the trick is to calibrate the tipping point at which the harm or cost of regulatory intervention starts to outweigh its benefits, and design your laws accordingly.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-03-2014, 07:00 PM:

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-03-2014, 07:14 PM:

From what I gather, in Hoffman's case, he did it as part of a partying lifestyle when he was still in NYU. So the culprit is the collective culture of he and his peer group. Even worse than an addict who does it in isolation are those who make it a group activity increasing the number of addicts. That is why pot should be legalized so the government can go after harder drugs with more focus. I would target the student population more than the adults who are lost cases by that time anyway.

Or just decriminalize it and let people die faster. That will be offset by the decrease in gang deaths in the drug trade. Also it will give law enforcement more time to really crank down hard on young people taking hard drugs.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-03-2014, 07:34 PM:

quote:
I am all for legalizing most drugs,

I see. So then Hoffman would still have died from his hot shot, but it would have been a legal hot shot. Great.

Even though I once had a drug era myself, I am against legalization. I constantly hear that "drugs are no worse than alcohol", but look at the toll drinking takes on our society in illness, loss of productivity, disease, death. Everyone on this board knows an alcoholic. Does that kind of lifestyle look appealing to you? I've seen alcoholism up close, and believe me, there are NO cute, lovable "Arthur" types among those living in a bottle.

The last thing the United States or any country needs to do is legislate into acceptability another great national tragedy. I know the war against narcotics is costly, but a nation of crackheads and heroin freaks will be costlier still. And from what I have noticed from among my acquaintances that fell along the way: dope is a gateway drug.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 02-03-2014, 07:40 PM:

I just watched the insider, Hoffman lived in a New York Apt that cost $11,000 a month. He was found in his bathroom with a syringe in his arm and syringes all over his apt, plus about 40 bins of Heroin according to police.

Too Bad this Garbage he was shooting in his Arm was more important to him in Life than his 3 young Daughters who now don't have a Father. Being able to spend 10 grand a month on getting high must have been Nice;How much did he spend on his Girls a Month.Good Actor or not, he was just another POS Druggie That the Hollywood crowd will cottle. I Don't feel sorry
for these People they have it made and throw it all away for
a temporary Thrill/High... Too bad he didn't spend as much time trying to live clean as he did perfecting his acting Talent... [thumbsdown]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-04-2014, 12:51 AM:

I don't mind people dying from drug-related things. I have no sympathy for Hoffman. I will not miss him. He did it to himself. Also I hated him because he made Synedouche NY which is one of the worst movies ever conceived. I'd turn to drugs if I were in that turd, too. But still, his life, his responsibility.

What I DO mind is when drugs affect others. Like because of your crappy drug use you cause the death or injury of others. Fortunately Hoffman only caused comas with his pretentious Synedouche NY movie but no injuries or deaths due to his drug use. So legalization is tricky. I'm all for letting idiots destroy themselves, but not others.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-04-2014, 09:23 AM:

That's just it. A drug user doesn't enter his downward spiral alone. Drug users also use people and will drag anyone within reach down as far as they'll let him. It really pisses me off when kids are involved.

I have two cousins who have wasted much of their adult lives indulging in drugs and alcohol. Incidentally, both have been living in Colorado for the past few years to take advantage of that state's Marijuana laws. One has been in prison numerous times for things like DUI and drug possession. The other hadn't been in jail nearly as much, but he came close to strangling his teen-aged son during some hallucinogenic stupor. My parents wound up being legal guardians for his kids for a couple years, which cost them a bunch of money.

I have close friends and coworkers who have been through similar hell dealing with spouses, kids or other family members caught up in drug abuse. When you see enough of this selfish, insidious shit close up enough it's very easy to develop a hard, intolerant attitude toward drugs. I can understand pretty easily why our criminal justice system is handling this problem in such an unforgiving manner. When you see drug users pulling some of the crap they do it just makes you want to beat the shit of them with a tire iron.

One of the biggest problems is our popular culture. The movie industry, music industry, fashion industry and art world all romanticize drug use and risky behavior in general. Wanna be one of the cool kids? Try this!

The next thing the impressionable kid knows is he's a young adult with a felony conviction and a whole lot of life ahead of him, but with no opportunities thanks to some stupid choices. So then be becomes a full time piece of shit as an adult.

Drugs aren't the only addiction ruining the lives of Americans. Here in Oklahoma we have so many casinos if you closed your eyes and threw a rock you would hit one. Gambling addiction will make normally good people do some very crazy shit. I'd never imagine an old grandmother knocking over a bank at gunpoint or a model employee getting caught embezzling $500,000. But that's what gambling addiction will do to people.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 02-04-2014, 10:28 AM:

IMHO, Gambling addiction is more about boredom about a life that lacks meaning and excitement. I had a relative who mortgaged the paid for house her husband left her.

I claim no particular insight about drugs but my brother spent the first 40 years of his life doing and selling drugs with all that entails, cleaned out my mothers life savings, etc.

He met a woman from the burbs who came to Berkeley looking for excitement and found him. She died a few years later but left him something like $500,000 so what's it all about?

A whole lot of musicians did some fine work while under the influence (Miles Davis, Stan Getz, Ray Charles,et al).

Drugs and hard living seem to be part of the life and yet we glorify them for not following the rules the rest of us seemed resigned to following.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-04-2014, 11:05 AM:

My mother died at 46, a true tragedy, to the evil that is cancer. She was a "creative intellectual" too. But for her, what was most precious was just a few more minutes, just a little more time of coherent conversation in the company of family, friends, those she loved. So for her, pressing that little button that delivered the morphine was the LAST thing to do, only when the pain was unbearable, plus a minute or two more. Any of those minutes could be the last.

Losers like this who die in the gutter chasing a buzz? No tragedy there (other than to his wife and kids who he selfishly ignored). Rest in peace? None of these losers can be, so just keep it down, you're disturbing the angels.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-04-2014, 02:42 PM:

Bobby, I don't think the media is actively hiding the issue of drug abuse and the destruction it causes, I just think that it's not a news worthy issue in most case because it's an issue that really comes down to statistics. However, the violence and other crime that goes along with the drug trade does make news.

As an example, we had an incident in my community on Christmas Day, where a home owner shot and killed someone "invading" their home. Normally an open and shut case of self defense. However, it turns out the home own was a felon in possession of firearms, and illegal ammunition (so called cop killer rounds). Further investigation found nearly 1000 pounds of processed marijuana between his home, his business, and a third location. Plus his home where the shooting happened was a grow site.

This story is far more "news worthy" than that of some no-name junkie found dead of an overdose in an abandon building. The issue isn't really any different than why the media will spend so much time covering Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian, rather than any of a million more important topics.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-04-2014, 03:35 PM:

I understand why the news media chooses to air certain stories. Unfortunately the general public ends up with a very distorted view on many issues because of the lack of balance in how those issues are reported.

Much of the drug legalization movement is centered around the very wrong idea that violent street crime is the worst part of illegal drug use. The news media is very guilty of presenting the issue in this manner. They don't say squat about the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year from their own substance abuse habits. They won't even look forward & imagine the kind of folly that would occur through "decriminalization" of street drugs. The nation would still be stuck with a large and now suddenly growing group of unemployable people. What will those shit-birds do for money if they can't hold down a job? That's right: resort to crime. So much for legalization getting criminals off the street. I think people in the news media would suck at chess because they can't think a few moves ahead.

Not only does the media obsess over violent street crime, they would have every American believing the situation is now worse than it has ever been when the fact of the matter is America's streets are probably safer now than they have ever been in this country's history. I feel sorry for kids growing up these days. Many are imprisoned in their own homes or constantly shadowed by their parents at every turn. When my brother and I were kids we had independence. It was pretty nice.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-04-2014, 08:19 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
However, the violence and other crime that goes along with the drug trade does make news.

Exactly, bingo, you get it! The media reports the issue because it is interesting the average person. It is interesting because there is crime involved.

If the government removes the criminal aspect of drugs and they actively regulate drugs and provide the drugs for a low price (just like cigarettes) then you will effectively reduce the amount of crime that is connected to drug use. The media will move on to other things.

The whole concept of legalization is not to reduce drug use, it is to reduce the crime connected with drug use. This is what a lot of forum members simply do not understand.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-04-2014, 09:02 PM:

But don't we then just replace it with crime and violence from the now-legal addicts? No thanks. Be happy to stop funding all substance abusers health insurance though....

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-04-2014, 09:29 PM:

@Dave, there will always be addicts, just like gambling or drinking and smoking. What is better for your community? A drug addict who has to steal other peoples possessions to be able to buy the very expensive drug that could be modified, enhanced etc or a drug addict who might not have to commit crime that has access to a cheaper, regulated and perhaps safer drug.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-04-2014, 10:07 PM:

If a drug addict can't hold down a job it won't matter how cheap his drug of choice is. He's going to have to steal in order to get money to buy his drug anyway. Shit, some criminals steal just to get money to buy cigarettes.

At least one third (if not more) of drugs sold on the street are prescription drugs. Armed robberies of pharmacies have doubled between 2005 and 2013. The robbers often go after prescription pain killers like the narcotic, hydrocodone. There's no way in hell controls will be lifted on such medications. They're now a leading culprit in drug overdose deaths.

I don't see controls ever being lifted on hard street drugs like heroin and methamphetamine. Those drugs are too dangerous and far too addictive to be used on any sort of casual basis.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-04-2014, 10:47 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If the government removes the criminal aspect of drugs and they actively regulate drugs and provide the drugs for a low price (just like cigarettes) then you will effectively reduce the amount of crime that is connected to drug use. The media will move on to other things.

First, let's be clear: the government does not provide tobacco. The government REGULATES tobacco.

Secondly, you are a fool if you think legalization for recreational use would solve crime. Yes, it would eliminate the minor crimes related to possession. But you're fooling yourself if you think the illegal drug growers/processors/distributors would simply give up on their source of income and go quietly into the night, that they would simply follow government requirements to become fine upstanding businesses which collect and pay taxes and follow regulations.

Legalizing marijuana, and other illicit drugs, would cause law abiding users to go to legal dispensaries. But there would still be plenty of people who would go to the illegal drug dealer because it was cheaper. The dealers would just have to drop their prices to be competitive.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-04-2014, 11:03 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
But there would still be plenty of people who would go to the illegal drug dealer because it was cheaper. The dealers would just have to drop their prices to be competitive.

There comes a point where it becomes not worth it to distribute drugs or products because the payoff is not high enough. Drug distribution is huge business because the payoff or reward is huge. How many times have you seen a cigarette smoker steal or break into someones house to steal so they purchase their smokes at the variety store? Let's remember, there are some studies that say that smoking cigarettes is more additive that heroin.

quote: Justin Hamaker
First, let's be clear: the government does not provide tobacco. The government REGULATES tobacco.

There is no need to be super technical.

quote: Justin Hamaker
Secondly, you are a fool if you think legalization for recreational use would solve crime.

Let's be clear: I never said legalization would solve crime, I said it would REDUCE crime that was connected with drug use.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-04-2014, 11:29 PM:

Legalization would only reduce some types of street crime. Meanwhile, depending on what was legalized, the far greater problem of substance abuse would worsen.

Businesses in the United States already lose many billions of dollars every year in lost productivity just from the effects of alcohol and tobacco use. Those legal drugs also take a toll on things like insurance premiums (health, liability, worker's comp). Illegal drug use adds to that toll. Legalization of drugs like Marijuana would increase those costs and worsen issues of lost productivity.

Right now, whenever my company has a job opening in our production shop or on the service crew we literally go through dozens of applicants before finding anyone worthwhile. Drug use is a big stumbling block for a lot of candidates. I've got news for the drug users: that situation isn't going to improve. Liability is a bitch for most companies, especially any companies that operate heavy equipment and doubly so for companies operating heavy equipment in public -like driving commercial trucks.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-05-2014, 09:45 AM:

Gotta draw the line somewhere. As a lifelong business owner/productive person, I have absolutely zero interest in my government taking on yet another enterprise they can mismanage, let alone condone MORE drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse that MY family's healthcare suffers over (me being a contributor to the system, but subject to waiting in line behind all those who choose to destroy themselves on purpose). Again, no thanks...

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-05-2014, 10:40 AM:

quote: Dave Bird
(me being a contributor to the system, but subject to waiting in line behind all those who choose to destroy themselves on purpose).

In Canada, it does not matter if drugs are illegal or not, you will get health coverage.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-05-2014, 02:58 PM:

As I understand it, this was the point Dave was making: that healthcare systems (whether essentially private sector, as in the US, or government-run, as in Canada) end up having to treat the chronic health problems caused by the consumption of both legal and illegal drugs, and that however the money flows through the system, people who take care of their health end up subsidizing those who do not.

I don't think there's any way you can work that problem totally out of the system, unless you're prepared to make arbitrary decisions as to which diseases are self-inflicted and which are just bad luck, and deny treatment for the former (if someone who is slightly but not grossly overweight shows up in the doctor's office with high blood pressure, do you deny them medication?). You can only try to keep it under control. Outlawing some drugs and regulating others is probably the best way to do that, in many cases.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-05-2014, 03:05 PM:

I understand what you are saying Leo, but on the other hand, how much times does law enforcement waste with the current way the system is set up?

If Phillip Hoffman died from drugs he bought legally at the pharmacy, would the police be wasting time chasing the drug dealers that sold Hoffman the drugs? Law enforcement could be doing other things. Legalization will help reduce the crime associated with drug use, the health care matter is a different story.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-05-2014, 03:30 PM:

Terry, I have just two words for you: Michael Jackson.

How much time and money has been wasted over his overdose from legally (if not ethically) prescribed drugs.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2014, 03:38 PM:

If Philip Seymour Hoffman had died of a prescription drug overdose some investigative questions would definitely be asked of the pharmacy that provided the drugs and the doctor who prescribed them. "Dr. Feelgood" quacks have been brought up on charges of malpractice and even thrown in jail for prescribing drugs when they shouldn't have done so. Some doctors make a good amount of money writing out prescriptions for people only looking to get high.

quote: Leo Enticknap
I don't think there's any way you can work that problem totally out of the system, unless you're prepared to make arbitrary decisions as to which diseases are self-inflicted and which are just bad luck, and deny treatment for the former (if someone who is slightly but not grossly overweight shows up in the doctor's office with high blood pressure, do you deny them medication?). You can only try to keep it under control. Outlawing some drugs and regulating others is probably the best way to do that, in many cases.

All drug users have somebody or something enabling their irresponsible, selfish choice of lifestyle. If you remove the factors that enable their behavior chances are far greater the users will get clean.

More and more workplaces in my part of the country are screening their employees for drug and alcohol use. The alcohol screening is a breathalyzer test. You would be surprised at how many people have a beer or whiskey breakfast and then go off to work, or hammer back a few during lunch. Some employers have a zero tolerance policy. If your piss test turns up positive for drugs or you blow something other than .000 in the breathalyzer you're fired. Other places will have a 1 or 2 strikes policy with mandatory rehab as a condition.

Most employers don't have drug testing policies in place. I think that is going to change as the costs of liability, worker's comp and health insurance policies continue to rise. If an addict is faced with not having a job and paycheck he'll reexamine his lifestyle choices. I have a few coworkers that did use pot recreationally before we put our drug testing policy in place. They had a simple choice: quit the drugs they were doing or find another job.

Family members and friends often enable a user's addiction, providing money, a place to live, etc.

Our social services sector also enables addictions via welfare, SSI, etc. Some lawmakers are wanting government benefits checks held up under a condition of drug testing. I have no problem with that approach. If someone is needing help from the government to turn their life around, the taxpayer dollars they're receiving give the government the right to demand certain conditions be met, like being drug free. As the United States' debt problem grows worse the idea of making recipients of government assistance submit to drug screenings will become more popular.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-05-2014, 03:41 PM:

Actor Hoffman's fatal heroin overdose puts focus on dealers

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/actor-philip-seymour-hoffmans-fatal-heroin-overdose-puts-focus-on-dealers/

Most of the nearly 40,000 Americans who die each year from a drug overdose do not make the front page, but when revered actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead Sunday with a needle in his arm, the nation took notice.

And so did the police. On Tuesday, four people were arrested on drug charges and are reportedly being questioned in relation to Hoffman’s death, placing the actor’s untimely demise squarely in the middle of a new trend in the war on drugs: charging dealers when their customers die.

“We’re coming for you,” says Al Della Fave, spokesman for the Ocean County, N.J. prosecutor’s office.

Fave told CBS News’ Crimesider that since he came into office in April 2013, prosecutor Joseph D. Coronato has “been on a mission” to hold dealers accountable for the deadly effects their products are having on citizens of Ocean County. According to Fave, of the 53 Ocean County residents who died of overdose in 2012, the majority were using heroin. Total overdoses in the county more than doubled in 2013, to 113; and so far in 2014, Fave says there have been eight fatal overdoses, seven involving heroin.

On Jan. 10, Coronato's office secured a 11-and-a-half year sentence for Kenneth Staunton, a 33-year-old who pleaded guilty to heroin possession and manslaughter in relation to the death of a 27-year-old man who overdosed on Stauton's product.

And just last week in Illinois, a 27-year-old woman was sentenced to four years in prison after she reportedly pleaded no contest to first degree reckless homicide for selling heroin to a man who died from overdose.

Kerry Harvey, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, is also cracking down on dealers in his state.

“We have had a truly horrific problem with prescription drug abuse,” Harvey told Crimesider. And while he says they’ve been able to restrict the supply of these drugs somewhat, the crackdown has “caused a comeback of heroin.”

Instead of specifically charging dealers with their customers’ overdose deaths, Harvey says his office has used sentencing enhancements that allow for as many as 20 years in prison if a death results from an illegal narcotic distributed by the suspect.

“It’s hard to deter someone acting out of an addiction, but you can deter people who are acting out of greed,” says Harvey. “We want them to know they’re risking their own life [when they deal], at least in terms of their freedom.”

Part of this new push has been to train first responders like police and EMTs to treat overdose scenes not as accidents, but as potential crime scenes. They’re taught to secure the scene, interview witnesses, and collect evidence, like pill bottles, needles and the all-important cell phone. Harvey pointed to one recent case where an overdose victim had called his dealer just hours before his death.

In addition, Harvey said that he’s conducted training at local coroner and medical examiner’s offices to make sure that overdose victims are autopsied so that a connection can be established between the death and the drugs.

“We’re trying to change the cost-benefit analysis for dealers,” says Harvey. “With every heroin transaction there is a significant risk of overdose death. We want them to know if their customer ODs, they will be held responsible.”

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-05-2014, 03:50 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Legalization will help reduce the crime associated with drug use, the health care matter is a different story.

You can't deal in absolutes though. If they legalized cocaine tomorrow, do you think all the guys who make big bucks selling cocaine are suddenly going to get licenses and open store fronts? There are way too many reasons that wouldn't take place....government regulation being one of them. If I had a well-operated illegitimate business bringing in good money and all of a sudden I could operate legally but have to give away half of my profits while raising my prices...well, that's a pretty good argument to stay illegitimate if I thought I could get away with it.

The idea of legalization also depends on the notion that people will have money to buy drugs legally. People who are major drug addicts can have a hard time keeping jobs, hence a lot of crime takes place because stoners just don't have the cash.

I guarantee you there is still plenty of black-market pot being sold illegally "on the cheap" in Colorado, the land of legalized pot, just due to the high prices now being charged by the legitimate dealers because of the demand.

How pot will become really mainstream is when big companies get involved and stores start selling packs of ready-made pot smokes and other products in grocery stores and pharmacies, the same way they sell regular cigarettes today. The whole notion of having to buy your pot in stupid little bags and roll your own joints is ... well I guess you would have to be a pothead to think that made much sense. Can you imagine the raging outcry that would arise if the tobacco companies stopped making cigarettes and all the smokers had to roll their own? Why, they'd wail their tar-covered lungs out.

In about 20 years people will look back on today's pot landscape and laugh their asses off...well, if they can remember that far back, they will.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2014, 05:13 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I guarantee you there is still plenty of black-market pot being sold illegally "on the cheap" in Colorado, the land of legalized pot, just due to the high prices now being charged by the legitimate dealers because of the demand.

That's very likely. People who want to use pot legally in Colorado have to register with the state and get some kind of card. They're entered into a tracked system. Plenty of drug users are not keen on that type of thing at all, especially if said drug user has outstanding warrants for his arrest.

Another thing that is happening: people buying pot legally from stores in Colorado yet smuggling it across state lines into places like Oklahoma to sell for even more money. Anyone doing this little profit making stunt has to beware of hardened criminals working in the same business, like Mexican cartel employees. Some of those guys have clandestine pot growing operations operating on national park land or even land owned by farmers. The DEA and OSBI found a pretty big pot growing operation on farm land near Chickasha not long ago.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2014, 09:41 PM:

quote: Article
On Tuesday, four people were arrested on drug charges and are reportedly being questioned in relation to Hoffman’s death, placing the actor’s untimely demise squarely in the middle of a new trend in the war on drugs: charging dealers when their customers die.

Now this is tricky and I'm not sure that I agree with it. Do you charge Home Depot with a crime when someone misuses a chainsaw and accidentally saws their arm off? Personal responsibility has to come into the situation somewhere. There isn't always someone else to blame. We like blaming others instead of taking personal responsibility like a man. What the hell is up with that? I blame our nanny-state society for this outlook.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-05-2014, 09:44 PM:

Home Depot isn't selling something illegal. A death that results from the commission of a felony is a crime. Selling heroin is a crime. If you were driving the getaway car for a bank robber who killed a teller, you could be charged with murder.
Not that I agree with the tactic, but the concept is not new.
I'm curious to know if this really is a common new tactic, or just a celebrity related one.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2014, 10:24 PM:

No one is compelled with an itch you can't scratch urge to hurt himself with a chainsaw purchased from Home Depot. Illegal drugs like heroin, or even legal ones like hydrocodone, compel their users to put their lives at serious risk in order to get high.

Drug dealers are already breaking the law selling what they're selling. If they end up killing a customer with their product I have no problem with them getting held accountable for it in some manner.

This is only fair considering the liabilities bartenders already face in legally selling alcohol drinks to customers. They're supposed to cut off someone if they've had too much to drink. If the customer leaves drunker than Cooter Brown and kills someone in a car accident the bartender that served the customer could be held accountable to some degree. It's not always easy for a bartender to tell when someone has had too much to drink. Some people show their drunkenness very obviously while others will seem very functional and sober looking when they're really hammered.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2014, 10:59 PM:

So you sell xxx amount of heroin to customer. Customer uses it and doe snot die. NO PROBLEM! Customer uses it and dies. OH NOW IT'S A PROBLEM! The death is not the fault of the seller. The seller should be charged with the same crime whether the idiot user dies or not. I do not feel bad for drug users. They are not victims. I know in this society people like to believe that everyone is a victim but that's bullshit. Their life, their responsibility. I am beginning to believe that almost everyone is a pussy, though. The seller's actions do not change if a user lives or dies. Maybe you guys can prove that when a user dies it somehow alters space/time to make it so the seller suddenly bears some of the blame where he did not if the user had lived. What if the user had many drugs from different sellers? Go arrest the seller for selling drugs. Make the penalty harsher for selling drugs. But don't tack on an extra charge that the seller has absolutely no control over.

Either way PSH is dead and I do not miss him.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-05-2014, 11:05 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
I'm curious to know if this really is a common new tactic, or just a celebrity related one.

I think is does count in most cases, if you sell drugs and they die from those drugs, then you could be held accountable. I believe it would have to be determined that the cause of death was in fact from the drugs alone and not a number of others factors combined.

quote: Joe Redifer
Maybe you guys can prove that when a user dies it somehow alters space/time to make it so the seller suddenly bears some of the blame where he did not if the user had lived. What if the user had many drugs from different sellers?

You bring up some good points, but I think the law would state otherwise. I believe their is something called a "but for" clause.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2014, 11:37 PM:

Some of these laws the pin some responsibility of the deaths of drug users on the dealers have been around for a long time. The laws are there due to the sometimes unpredictable nature of illegal street drugs and the tendency of drug users to be attracted to the more dangerous, potent concoctions circulating on the streets.

Heroin users don't really know for sure what they'll be getting from a dealer. They don't know if the H they bought is weak, average or potent to the point of being very dangerous. It's possible for a drug dealer to get a new supply of something like "China White," which could either be a type of alpha-Methylfentanyl or very pure heroin or a mix of both. If the recipe isn't made right and/or the users don't use it properly a rash of overdose deaths could be the end result. The funny thing with heroin users is when they hear a particular version of the drug is killing people they'll think, "oh man I gotta try that!" A junkie exercising personal responsibility? Not likely.

Many of us think it's just fine when a junkie gets a hot dose and takes the dirt nap. Let more junkies join him in the cemetery. And that's all fine and good until one of the drug users dying happens to be a friend or family member.

Heroin kills a lot of people. The drug dealers selling heroin know this very well. They know they're selling a form of suicide. I have a pretty hard attitude toward drug use, but a more unforgiving attitude toward those making money from it.

The United States is dealing with a crisis in health care and a lot of attention is being given to encouraging people to lead healthier lifestyles that are less costly to society. Cigarette smoking has been banned in so many places. Legalizing pot and possibly other illegal drugs seems extremely contradictory to efforts to make people more health conscious.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-06-2014, 01:31 AM:

Don't most of the big celebs have a personal assistant or an agent or whoever that takes care of that kind of thing for them? (Scoring their weed)

I know that music companies used to have people who did that for artists while they were recording...it's probably still the same way now.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-06-2014, 01:56 AM:

Sorry - didn't know that. If so, the police probably interviewed Hoffman's PA(s) as their first step, and identified the drug dealers from them.

Even so, in the reports I've been reading of the arrests, 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.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-06-2014, 01:39 PM:

Don't more people die each year from prescription drug-related problems than illegal drug problems?

What we need are more laws. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-06-2014, 03:31 PM:

>>In Canada, it does not matter if drugs are illegal or not, you will get health coverage.<<

Well aware of it, and also how I as a productive taxpayer and employer to hundreds of other productive taxpayers have to wait in line while "non-payers" collect their services, and because of that, receive far less quality of care than I would have been able to afford myself. Add in everyone who abuses and collects their "free" care in front of others, and it's pretty clear those who are footing the bill are getting far less than they pay for.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-06-2014, 05:49 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
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.

My admittedly subjective and personal experience is the opposite. I would sometimes go to the pub with colleagues for an hour or so after work, some of whom thought nothing of having two or three pints and then driving home ... except for the week or two around Christmas, when those pints would be of Coke (which, ironically, probably did them more damage than the beer they usually drank, but that's another discussion). This wasn't because for two weeks of the year they suddenly realized how dangerous drink-driving was and decided to be good citizens: it was because they believed that they were a lot more likely to be caught. If you put that another way, they believed, correctly, that during the rest of the year, their chances of being caught were effectively zero.

So in a way you're right: the blitzes do work in that they do deter people from drink-driving while they take place. The problem is that they send the message that it's OK to do behavior you're trying to deter when the blitzes are not taking place.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-06-2014, 06:48 PM:

The most effective anti-drunk driving stings are the surprise checkpoint variety put in place on weekend nights that don't necessarily fall on a major holiday that involves drinking (New Years Eve, St. Patrick's Day, Independence Day). Unfortunately many police departments don't have the manpower to conduct such stings on a regular basis.

Here in Lawton the police department targets a couple of the city's most popular night spots. Instead of waiting down the road trying to catch DUI suspects they put together a big presence in the parking lots during the last hour or two the night clubs are open. Anyone leaving who appears to have had one too many will be directed to one of many cabs waiting in line to drive people home. This approach has two benefits. They're getting more drunks off the streets, but even more important they're eliminating assaults and worse acts that can happen in the parking lots.

Our police department regularly conducts other types of driving stings, mainly busting people driving with no license, a suspended license and/or no insurance. Drivers without insurance is a very common problem.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-07-2014, 12:13 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
So in a way you're right: the blitzes do work in that they do deter people from drink-driving while they take place.

I appreciate that you can see my point of view on the subject matter.

quote: Leo Enticknap
The problem is that they send the message that it's OK to do behavior you're trying to deter when the blitzes are not taking place.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think the average person "thinks" its ok, the average person does not drive drunk very often or at all for that matter. The NHTSA estimates that during the period from Thanksgiving to New Years, three times as many people die from crashes that involve drinking and driving. As you get close to Christmas and New Years the stats get higher and higher, this is simply why there are drinking and driving blitzes during the holidays.

The hardcore drinkers who regularly drive drunk will always drive drunk, blitzes probably will not stop them.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 02-08-2014, 12:04 PM:

According to the intense media coverage of this, the heroin in some US cities comes in small plastic (also reported as wax paper?) packages about an inch square, with a brand logo. The quality of the brands is even reviewed on websites. When someone ODs and dies and the brand is mentioned in the news coverage, that brand gets much more popular and even counterfeited. Obviously it's "good stuff" if it killed someone...

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-11-2014, 05:40 PM:

Next week Tues/Wed Indiana University Cinema will present a 24-hour marathon showcasing Philip Seymour Hoffman's career.

From the IU Cinema special calendar page:

IU Cinema tribute to Philip Seymour Hoffman

quote:
Indiana University Cinema pays tribute to the work and legacy of Philip Seymour Hoffman with a 24-hour, 12-film retrospective of his work. Films will be screened back-to-back without intermission. Tickets are not required and audience members are welcome to enter and leave. Seating capacity is 260 and doors will open at 4:00 pm on Tuesday, February 18.

You can see the full IU press release here.

Thanks to a generous gift from Jim and Roberta Sherman, IU Cinema is able to offer this tribute to audiences free of charge. We hope that you join us to honor the work of a master filmmaker, Philip Seymour Hoffman. All films will be screened from 35mm, DCP or HD content. The program includes:

Tuesday, February 18 4:00 PM Jack Goes Boating
Tuesday, February 18 5:40 PM The Savages
Tuesday, February 18 7:40 PM The Master
Tuesday, February 18 10:10 PM Mission Impossible III
Wednesday, February 19 12:20 AM Almost Famous
Wednesday, February 19 2:25 AM A Late Quartet
Wednesday, February 19 4:15 AM Doubt
Wednesday, February 19 6:15 AM Synecdoche, New York
Wednesday, February 19 8:20 AM Magnolia
Wednesday, February 19 11:35 AM Boogie Nights
Wednesday, February 19 2:15 PM Capote
Wednesday, February 19 4:15 PM Owning Mahowny

All start times are estimates.

And here's the IU press release, referenced above:

quote:
IU Cinema paying tribute to Philip Seymour Hoffman with 24-hour film marathon

Feb. 11, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Indiana University Cinema will screen 12 films starring the late Philip Seymour Hoffman in an overnight marathon Feb. 18 and 19 on the Bloomington campus.

Hoffman, who died Feb. 2, was a widely admired actor who, The New York Times declared, "gave three-dimensional nuance to a wide range of sidekicks, villains and leading men on screen and embraced some of the theater's most burdensome roles on Broadway." Hoffman's work varied widely -- while he won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the eccentric author in "Capote," he was cast as a villain in the Hollywood blockbuster "Mission Impossible III" alongside Tom Cruise and portrayed gritty rock critic Lester Bangs in "Almost Famous."

"Philip Seymour Hoffman's commitment to the craft of acting and his unrealized future artistic output will be missed by all of cinema," IU Cinema director Jon Vickers said. "He brought a believable level of intensity to all of his roles, whether that be in the form of a quiet, reflective character or a raucous public personality. We wanted to honor his work in an equally intense fashion."

IU Cinema will screen the following films as part of the tribute:

4 p.m. Feb. 18, "Jack Goes Boating" -- The only film Hoffman acted in that he also directed tells the story of a limo driver's blind date in New York City.
5:40 p.m. Feb. 18, "The Savages" -- Siblings face the realities of familial responsibility as they begin to care for their aging father.
7:40 p.m. Feb. 18, "The Master" -- A Navy veteran drifts through a series of breakdowns until he becomes deeply involved in a cult, engaged by its charismatic leader.
10:10 p.m. Feb. 18, "Mission Impossible III" -- A secret agent faces a dangerous and sadistic arms dealer while trying to keep his identity secret in order to protect his girlfriend.
12:20 a.m. Feb. 19, "Almost Famous" -- A high school boy accompanies an up-and-coming rock band on tour and writes about it for Rolling Stone magazine.
2:25 a.m. Feb. 19, "A Late Quartet" -- Members of a world-renowned string quartet struggle to stay together in the face of death, ego and lust.
4:15 a.m. Feb. 19, "Doubt" -- A Catholic school principal questions a priest's ambiguous relationship with a troubled young student.
6:15 a.m. Feb. 19, "Synecdoche, New York" -- A theater director struggles with life while creating a life-size replica of New York City inside a warehouse as part of his new play.
8:20 a.m. Feb. 19, "Magnolia" -- The parallel stories of two men about to die, each estranged from a grown child uninterested in making contact.
11:35 a.m. Feb. 19, "Boogie Nights" -- Eddie would've been just another dropout if he hadn't met director Jack Horner, who introduces him to the adult film world and transforms him into a star.
2:15 p.m. Feb. 19, "Capote" -- While researching "In Cold Blood," an account of the murder of a Kansas family, the author develops a relationship with one of the accused killers.
4:15 p.m. Feb. 19, "Owning Mahowny" -- Things get messy for a bank manager with a gambling problem and access to a multimillion dollar account.

All films are free and open to the public, thanks to a donation from IU Cinema supporters Jim and Roberta Sherman. No tickets are necessary, though the cinema's seating is limited to 260 people.

All films will run back-to-back without intermission, and audience members may come and go as they please. Showtimes are approximated based on published running times of the films.