Breaking: NYPD: Philip Seymour Hoffman Found Dead in Manhattan

openyourmind1262
reply to post by webedoomed

 

I tried to stay out of this thread. I can't. Addiction is not a disease. Addiction is a choice. A poor choice at that. It became a disease in the 70's when big pharma lobbied for it and for profit re-habs sprung up all across America like weeds in a garden. Who owns those re-habs? Big Pharma & Big Insurance. We dont decide at 19 or 20 to go get me some cancer, but we do decide to do the drugs we all have been educated not to do. A choice. Getting yourself addicted to a substance then claiming it's a disease is the biggest cop-out of an arguement there ever was. Cancer is a disease, diabete's is a disease, hiv is a disease, polio is a disease. No one chooses to go out and become afflicted with any of the examples I gave. But we do choose to do drugs. Phillip Seymor Hoffman killed himself because he was addcited to drugs, he did'nt die of a diesease, he died because he was a drug user, tired of hearing all the"he was great, he was such an actor, he was exactly what? When you realise the man was getting himself cranked on his drugs then taking care of his children, makes you wonder just how wonderful a dad he really was. When he was found dead with a needle in his arm, he was supposed to be picking his kids up. Yea, he's the dad of the year. " Herion: Kills rock stars dead...actors too. I have zero sympathy for the man, but my heart goes out to his children.

I'm not the one who was saying addiction is a disease, but by your logic, if there was a cancer pill, and you willingly took it, would it then not be a disease? The answer is still yes.

Btw, it's a personality disorder imo, and that's coming from someone with an addictive personality. For the record, most actors and rock stars have addictive personalities. That's how they got so good at what they do in the first place. You pretty much have to have an addictive personality to be able to sit down and do one thing all night, every night (especially as a kid) to eventually be so good you go pro.

Everything I do, that I enjoy, I get addicted to in some form or another. I started playing drums at 4 years old, and every night up until I was 17-19 I would play drums until my hands bled and were full of blisters. Then I would go get some band-aids and continue playing. When I was 11 I got addicted to golf too, now I shoot in the mid 70's. A friend introduced me to Call Of Duty in 07, and now every room I get into people think I'm hacking etc etc. When I had to go to the hospital and get major surgery done, and they gave me pain meds, it was all over, lol (luckily I was able to quit that).

Bottom line is, literally everything I do, I do way over the top, and that's how a lot of musicians/actors/athletes are as well.

Anthony Hopkins agrees.



So mr Hoffman probably had that as well. It's not impossible to get away from, but something like heroin is EXTREMELY hard to kick, simply because it's not just about saying "okay, I don't need the high anymore, so I'll just stop", it's the withdrawal that you can't even begin to imagine, unless you've gone through it, that keeps you coming back 90% of the time.

And for the record, Hoffman checked HIMSELF into a rehab clinic and got out just a couple weeks before he died. So that shows he was at least attempting to get clean. Sometimes, you lose though.

Why on earth would he have fifty to sixty bags around his apartment, even for an addict that sounds excessive.

Stormdancer777
Why on earth would he have fifty to sixty bags around his apartment, even for an addict that sounds excessive.

I guess it all depends on how big the bags were. Dime bags are really small. Still though, 50 bags is a fair amount, but maybe he had a huge tolerance, or maybe he didn't want to go to the dealer every 5 minutes. Running out is a REALLY bad thing to have happen, especially if you're on the job and need to feel normal in order to perform. I never did heroin, but I remember thinking I would have bought a truck load of oxy's if I could have, just to have some piece of mind.

Also, he could probably easily afford it anyway.

reply to post by Stormdancer777




I'm surprised we haven't had the "Scientologists Killed him and planted the drugs" thread yet.
Hoffman is the second actor from the movie The Master to die*
The Master is based loosely on or partly inspired by Cult Leader and Scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard






* I do not believe this, one died of cancer complications and one from an overdose, I'm merely saying what the crazies are probably thinking.

reply to post by JohnnySasaki


This is me. I find something I enjoy, i do it excessively. I like lifting weights in high school, so i became a powerlifter (and won all but the state title). I liked programming as a kid, too. We won 3 state contests in a row (me and another guy).

The breaking point for me comes with my family. I used to partake in all sundry substances. My wife civilized me, in that way and others.

What you say is partially true. But there is also the effect of that "a-ha" moment where you create a line that cannot be crossed.

If he really had all those needles found in his apartment, he would have had needle tracks all over his body. Let's see if the autopsy reports supports that conclusion. All those heroin bags founds in the apartment reminds me of the scene from the movie "Tougher Than Leather" where they shoot some guy and then scatter a bunch of crack vials around his body to make it look like a drug thing.

www.youtube.com...

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

 

What you say is partially true. But there is also the effect of that "a-ha" moment where you create a line that cannot be crossed.

That line is easily broken for some people.

I just left the bar talking to a 73 year old man.

He has cirrhosis of the liver. Nearly drank himself to death.

I'm conversing with a man in his 50's who drinks one year on, one solid year off, and has done so since age 21... and this 73yo.

We're pushing this guy through epiphany after epiphany, finally concluding exactly what I've been saying in this thread.

You know why he quit? He quit because his family abandoned him, and social services finally told him he had to go into a retirement home with people who were mostly in their 80's and 90's. It was no longer worth it for him. He mad a conscious decision that he was ready to quit. He realized it nearly killed him already, and he was ready to grow.

I pointed out it was always within his power to quit, and he agreed. We rooted back the exact set of events that caused his addictions to manifest.

There is no friggin disease called drug addiciton. There are individuals who are under delusions that the abuse somehow magically makes issues go away. People get addicted to drugs because they are in a state of denial. It's not a chemical disorder, brain disorder, and certainly not worthy of the label "disease".

Both men fully agreed with all the points I brought up.

They lived through times before all this propaganda infiltrated our social institutions.

The current model is pseudo-science.

JohnnySasaki

Btw, it's a personality disorder imo, and that's coming from someone with an addictive personality. For the record, most actors and rock stars have addictive personalities. That's how they got so good at what they do in the first place. You pretty much have to have an addictive personality to be able to sit down and do one thing all night, every night (especially as a kid) to eventually be so good you go pro.

Everything I do, that I enjoy, I get addicted to in some form or another. I started playing drums at 4 years old, and every night up until I was 17-19 I would play drums until my hands bled and were full of blisters. Then I would go get some band-aids and continue playing. When I was 11 I got addicted to golf too, now I shoot in the mid 70's. A friend introduced me to Call Of Duty in 07, and now every room I get into people think I'm hacking etc etc. When I had to go to the hospital and get major surgery done, and they gave me pain meds, it was all over, lol (luckily I was able to quit that).

Bottom line is, literally everything I do, I do way over the top, and that's how a lot of musicians/actors/athletes are as well.

Whose order? Which order are you distanced from? You just essentially pathologized potentially brilliant minds. Why?

Habits may be pathological, but not the inherent abilities of the psyche. If we didn't have people who go to extremes, we wouldn't have social, political, or cultural breakthroughs. There would be NO genius, or gifted minds. Our progress would stagnate against the ever changing terrain which surrounds us. The end result is a collapse of civilization.

Taking everything to extremes is a sign of exceptional abilities. You know what it means to be exceptional? It means the rules which apply to this supposed static "norm" (which is anything but) don't work well for you. Your ruler is not so standardized.

Nothing is inherently pathological of this, mere variation. Carry on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole of my stance is that stigma is placed on the individual as is just. Calling someone a fool, or idiot for having bad habits is good. It's incentivizes someone to change their habits. You don't stop there. Merely pointing to a fool is foolish. Guiding them from that point on is wise (if they are willing to listen).

Calling someone personality disordered, and specifically diseased by their drug habit/addiction, disincentivizes someone to change of their own free will. It places a thought in mind that they are powerless to change from within. It chains the individual to institutions. These shackles are but a mere transference from one delusion to the next.

webedoomed
There is no friggin disease called drug addiciton. There are individuals who are under delusions that the abuse somehow magically makes issues go away. People get addicted to drugs because they are in a state of denial. It's not a chemical disorder, brain disorder, and certainly not worthy of the label "disease".

Both men fully agreed with all the points I brought up.

They lived through times before all this propaganda infiltrated our social institutions.

The current model is pseudo-science.

No, it's actual neuroscience. Drugs like coc aine and heroin literally rewire receptors in your brain and altar how your brain makes decisions. This is a fact whether you want to accept it or not. That's not to say there should never be any personal accountantability but to discount longterm physiological affects because its easier to look down your nose at someone who's made different life choices that negatively affects them doesn't mean others should also be so unsympathetic when we see another person going through hell or feel sympathy for those left behind as a result of a foolish decision made in youth as in the case with PSH.
www.huffingtonpost.com... aine-decision-making_n_3818400.html

health.usnews.com... aine-spurs-long-term-change-in-brain-chemistry

www.health.harvard.edu...

peter vlar

No, it's actual neuroscience. Drugs like coc aine and heroin literally rewire receptors in your brain and altar how your brain makes decisions. This is a fact whether you want to accept it or not.

Partially correct. Science shows us after the fact the result of our habits. You know what else changes the wiring of the brain? Any habit we continue. Conservation of energy makes it more difficult to break our habits than to create them. So what?

I accept the fact that this process goes on for any habit we choose. I deny this being evidence for the label of "disease". It was a choice to first partake, and a choice each step of the way the more strengthened these neural networks became as a result of our continued habit.

That's not to say there should never be any personal accountantability but to discount longterm physiological affects because its easier to look down your nose at someone who's made different life choices that negatively affects them doesn't mean others should also be so unsympathetic when we see another person going through hell or feel sympathy for those left behind as a result of a foolish decision made in youth as in the case with PSH.

Oh, but that's the exact reason for the shifting of this terminology. To discount personal responsibility. This is propaganda pushed by naive social workers. It's not real science.

webedoomed

peter vlar

No, it's actual neuroscience. Drugs like coc aine and heroin literally rewire receptors in your brain and altar how your brain makes decisions. This is a fact whether you want to accept it or not.

Partially correct. Science shows us after the fact the result of our habits. You know what else changes the wiring of the brain? Any habit we continue. Conservation of energy makes it more difficult to break our habits than to create them. So what?

I accept the fact that this process goes on for any habit we choose. I deny this being evidence for the label of "disease". It was a choice to first partake, and a choice each step of the way the more strengthened these neural networks became as a result of our continued habit.

That's not to say there should never be any personal accountantability but to discount longterm physiological affects because its easier to look down your nose at someone who's made different life choices that negatively affects them doesn't mean others should also be so unsympathetic when we see another person going through hell or feel sympathy for those left behind as a result of a foolish decision made in youth as in the case with PSH.

Oh, but that's the exact reason for the shifting of this terminology. To discount personal responsibility. This is propaganda pushed by naive social workers. It's not real science.

Look, you're clearly entitled to your own opinions. It's also clear you have little personal experience with addiction and as a result have little or no sympathy for those who succumb to it. I can give you all of that. But to say legitimate peer reviewed science is not science is, well, perplexing. How exactly do you account for the fact that 50% of individual variation in susceptibility to addiction is hereditary? Or that new genetic studies have shown that one gene variant reduces the amount of dopamine release caused by coc aine in human beings — a genetic defense against at least one type of addiction. If addiction werent a physiological problem the body would
not come up with a mechanism to avoid it. Or the identification of an extra gene for the production of a certain nerve cell protein are more vulnerable to coc aine addiction. Again, there is always a personal responsibity component. I can say this from personal experience and
have seen far too many people use addiction as an excuse for simply being a crappy human and alleviating themselves of accepting any responsibility for their actions. It's a route I never took and never understood. But it's still not the same as chemically altering your brain chemistry being compared to driving fast or skydiving or some other comparison that makes apples and oranges look like cookies and cream.

peter vlar

Look, you're clearly entitled to your own opinions. It's also clear you have little personal experience with addiction and as a result have little or no sympathy for those who succumb to it. I can give you all of that.

False assumption. I have family who is considered addicts, was a part of the rave scene in the 90's, and have friends who are still in serious denial using hard drugs. I'll tell you what I know for sure. Getting off a junk food diet and simple sugars is harder than any hard drug addiction. You can take that to the bank!!

But to say legitimate peer reviewed science is not science is, well, perplexing.

Peer reviewed science has been shown to be false time and time again. It's a standard that is capable of err. I don't dispute the data, just the assumptions which are attached to it.

How exactly do you account for the fact that 50% of individual variation in susceptibility to addiction is hereditary?

Logically. Variation within the species. What of it?

Or that new genetic studies have shown that one gene variant reduces the amount of dopamine release caused by coc aine in human beings — a genetic defense against at least one type of addiction. If addiction werent a physiological problem the body would not come up with a mechanism to avoid it.

This same SNP also gives propensities for behavior that strengthens the individual. There is trade-off in all variations which are not clearly detrimental. DNA accounts for ~2% of hereditary diseases, and addicition is not one of them. The rest lies in epigenetics. None of this explains habits as disease, it merely shows that some individuals are more prone to addiction. I have not denied this once in the thread.

Or the identification of an extra gene for the production of a certain nerve cell protein are more vulnerable to coc aine addiction. Again, there is always a personal responsibity component. I can say this from personal experience and
have seen far too many people use addiction as an excuse for simply being a crappy human and alleviating themselves of accepting any responsibility for their actions. It's a route I never took and never understood. But it's still not the same as chemically altering your brain chemistry being compared to driving fast or skydiving or some other comparison that makes apples and oranges look like cookies and cream.

I can agree with the first half. The second half, the science is yet to be clear on. Have you ever tried to go on a ketogenic diet? It's basically the same. A chunk adapt without much pain. A chunk moderate issues. A percentage, perhaps 10-20%, have severe issues with making the transition.

Variation which changes our propensities towards certain habits in no way excuses the responsibilities, and makes it worthy of the title, "disease".

I read each of your links. The first two deal with lab-animals. Human beings are unique in their development of the pre-frontal cortex. This enables us to make higher-order decision processes that most other animals are completely incapable of. It allows us to be so self-aware (aware of our awareness). This makes the findings of behavioral conditioning from lab-animals not all too applicable to our species. Why don't reserachers take this into consideration?

The third link ends with this paragraph:

The new brain research suggests that addiction is not just a property of certain drugs but an aspect of certain human activities and relationships. Researchers have already found resemblances between the brain scan images of compulsive gamblers and drug addicts. The idea of addiction to television, video games, overeating, or sexual behavior may be more than a metaphor. Exploring the biology of addiction could lead to a deeper understanding of the sources of all human motivation and habit formation.

So where do we draw the line? Is overeating a disease? Is excessive video game playing a disease? Internet use a disease? Is sexual variation a disease? What about compulsive gambling? Are these individuals incapable of overcoming their conditioned responses and strengthened neural networks from environmental stimuli? Are they doomed to these fatalistic claims? Are they diseased?

You may find some of my previous links of interest. Appreciate the response. We don't actually seem to be all too far off in our understandings.

Stormdancer777
Why on earth would he have fifty to sixty bags around his apartment, even for an addict that sounds excessive.

My guess would be it is safer to buy in bulk, instead of having to call on a dealer every few days or each week. Just keep a good stock on hand.

OR, he certainly could've relapsed that hard core that he was shooting up a LOT.

webedoomed

peter vlar

Look, you're clearly entitled to your own opinions. It's also clear you have little personal experience with addiction and as a result have little or no sympathy for those who succumb to it. I can give you all of that.

False assumption. I have family who is considered addicts, was a part of the rave scene in the 90's, and have friends who are still in serious denial using hard drugs. I'll tell you what I know for sure. Getting off a junk food diet and simple sugars is harder than any hard drug addiction. You can take that to the bank!!

In retrospect I owe you an apology. I should've known going out on that limb was a foolish move.

So where do we draw the line? Is overeating a disease? Is excessive video game playing a disease? Internet use a disease? Is sexual variation a disease? What about compulsive gambling? Are these individuals incapable of overcoming their conditioned responses and strengthened neural networks from environmental stimuli? Are they doomed to these fatalistic claims? Are they diseased?

You may find some of my previous links of interest. Appreciate the response. We don't actually seem to be all too far off in our understandings.

edit on 4-2-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

Honestly, it's a more than fair question of where to draw the line. One I don't have an answer to. I could make better comparisons by drawing a personal analogy but due to the topic matter I'd prefer not to push the limits of T&C. Lets just say that at my age I know my limitations and some substances are worse than a bag of Lays potato chips. It's less of a "one just isn't enough" scenario and more of a " no matter what you have I'll take it but there's no way you have enough so don't bother". And to me that's a heck of a lot different than eating 2 large pizzas and a bag of Oreos, unless I was visiting Colorado. I know when I'm full and when to put away the sugar. With other things, that shut off switch just doesn't exist. I've been reading drug related studies for many years and have less experience with other "addiction diseases" or however they're classified so I just don't have the information to appropriately comment.

I suggest that some of our responders read this.

NATGEO: How Heroin Kills: What Might Have Happened to Philip Seymour Hoffman

A heroin overdose happens because use of the drug alters the neurons within every addict's brain—but the alterations occur in different parts of the brain at varying rates of speed. The pleasure center, increasingly hard to satisfy, is screaming "More!" But primitive centers that control breathing and heart rate are not building up tolerance at the same pace and are whispering "Enough."

"As your dosage goes up, you have a rapid tolerance to the euphoric response, but not nearly as much to the respiratory response," says David Smith, an addiction treatment specialist and founder of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics of San Francisco.

The pleasure of the first rush of heroin doesn't repeat itself over prolonged usage. That initial euphoria becomes a lasting memory, and one to be obsessively chased. "Drugs hijack the brain, and you stop feeling the pleasure of the experience. The addict who used to feel great, now is lucky to feel a little better," says Stein.

The experience of using heroin changes the brain permanently.

Yup, drug/heroin users/addicts/dependents are weak. They just need willpower.

*eyeroll*

reply to post by Liquesence


LOL, speaking of NatGeo, my friend in his 50's (see above post) used to be a photographer for NatGeo. He lived in NYC for a long time. Guy was talking earlier about how he would see Hoffman stumbling around obviously blasted out his skull. I asked if this was in the last year (because that's what the overly-sympathetic chatter is saying as to when he relapsed), he said no... at least the last 3-4 years.

So he's been messed around his kids for the last several years. Not cool.



In severe addicts of hard-drugs, there is specific areas which may be permanently damaged, but a year or two of sobriety allows the brain to compensate for pretty much all that life throws our way. Most of the damage can be repaired in time, though the rest which doesn't compensate/repair basically means we have less cognitive reserves to deal with decline as we age. It makes us more susceptible to things like dementia. I've rewired my brain more than a couple of times due to various traumas.

As for the single high-dose that can permanently damage the brain, it's a myth. This myth was started from a study involving mice, with doses that are far beyond what a human would ever use. Remember the propaganda that puffage could kill you decades ago? Turns out they had to put the contents of tons of smoke into a closed environment, which caused asphyxiation due to insufficient oxygen displaced by the smoke itself. Same thing here, it's inapplicable to human beings.

One of the links I provided talks about the social changes that tend to accompany hard-addiction. This individual posits that structural variations (indicating supposed damage, which could possibly be inherent deviation from norm) between hard addicts may be accounted for by different lifestyles. Some addicts hide their addictions and seem to live a normal life. Others partake in taboo/deviant behavior outside of the drug use itself.

You are delusional. Are *you* in denial/on hard drugs?

reply to post by webedoomed

So first you say

In severe addicts of hard-drugs, there is specific areas which may be permanently damaged, but a year or two of sobriety allows the brain to compensate for pretty much all that life throws our way. Most of the damage can be repaired in time,

And then you say

he would see Hoffman stumbling around obviously blasted out his skull. I asked if this was in the last year ... he said no... at least the last 3-4 years.

So, by your argument, 20+ years of sobriety might have readjusted his brain to *normal*, but 3-4 years of re-use would have once again messed him up and imbalanced his brain.
If Hoffman had been using for 3-4 years after sobriety then his brain wouldn't have compensated and readjusted or been repaired due to sobriety (because he would have been using again for 4 years) hence RELAPSE.

Some addicts hide their addictions and seem to live a normal life.

100% agree. But that doesn't mean they don't have a problem or their brain chemistry hasn't changed.

4 arrested in connection with drugs in Hoffman's apartment

New York (CNN) -- Four people thought to be connected to the drugs found in Philip Seymour Hoffman's apartment were arrested late Tuesday night, law enforcement officials told CNN.

Interesting article for anyone interested...

Liquesence
You are delusional. Are *you* in denial/on hard drugs?

I don't even take aspirin. The only drug I consume is caffeine.

Delusion

So basically, you got nothin'.

reply to post by webedoomed

 

So first you say

In severe addicts of hard-drugs, there is specific areas which may be permanently damaged, but a year or two of sobriety allows the brain to compensate for pretty much all that life throws our way. Most of the damage can be repaired in time,

And then you say

he would see Hoffman stumbling around obviously blasted out his skull. I asked if this was in the last year ... he said no... at least the last 3-4 years.

So, by your argument, 20+ years of sobriety might have readjusted his brain to *normal*, but 3-4 years of re-use would have once again messed him up and imbalanced his brain.
If Hoffman had been using for 3-4 years after sobriety then his brain wouldn't have compensated and readjusted or been repaired due to sobriety (because he would have been using again for 4 years) hence RELAPSE.

I'm failing to see any argument here whatsoever. Guy was sober for some period of tme which we'll never know of the duration. Guy went back on drugs. He repatterned his brain through use. What is your point?! Do you want me to admit he relapsed?! Okay, he relapsed. What of it?? Do you have a point here?

100% agree. But that doesn't mean they don't have a problem or their brain chemistry hasn't changed.

Of course drug addicts have a problem. I classify people who consume illegal drugs into three categories:

Recreational user

Psychonaut

Addict

Guess which category has a problem?

That Hoffman chose to pick up bad habits again in no way excuses his self. I'm not the delusional one. The science backs my stance.

Stormdancer777
Why on earth would he have fifty to sixty bags around his apartment, even for an addict that sounds excessive.

Liquesence
My guess would be it is safer to buy in bulk, instead of having to call on a dealer every few days or each week. Just keep a good stock on hand.

OR, he certainly could've relapsed that hard core that he was shooting up a LOT.

That is a good question. 50-60 bags? We are not talking about eggs here that come individually pkg.

If the average citizen were caught with 50 individual "bags" of any illegal substance, they would be charged with "intent to traffic".

I would think if a superstar wanted to buy drugs in bulk, it would just come in a bigger bag, or brief case.

But, I dunno the Hollywood "scene" or much about packaging or using heroin...