|
A drug addled actor dies......the poor darling suffered from low esteem according to the BBC. Honestly why does this crap make the headline news...?
|
It's a media thing, darling.
Your face gets seen on the telly or cinema and you are a "celebrity".
I don't even recognise most of them ......... I'm with Victor Meldrew on this one.
|
>> drug addled actor dies......the poor darling
From reading the coverage I don't get the impression the late actor was remotely 'addled'. He seems to have been explicitly aware of his slide back into addiction and to have regretted it. To me that says rational, not addled. The thing that will addle your brain is internalization of the official public discourse on 'drugs'.
Opiate use in the US is particularly dangerous because supplies are all illegal and concentration varies enormously. One doesn't know of course but the evidence given suggests that the poor fellow overdosed on an unusually good-quality consignment. Happens and happened quite often. Anyone tempted to try heroin - something I definitely wouldn't recommend except in cases of terminal illness - would be well advised to seek out a kind, trustworthy old junkie to show them the ropes.
Son of some friends died after overdosing on Mexican brown during a boys' night out in Chelsea some years ago. Poor little idiots didn't even know what it was, and the parents were convinced the stuff had been adulterated. It wasn't, it was just what a proper junkie would call really 'good'.
Providing heroin on the NHS to addicts reduces heroin use and prevents accidents of this sort. Junkies are more numerous, more criminal and sicker than they were in the old days when this country had a civilized opiate control system. The Americans made us torpedo it.
|
I think that people who become addicted to drugs suffer from a defect in their personality.
Who but a loon would try the stuff, knowing the likely consequences?
|
Can't say I can remember he in anything... Maybe a 'great actor' but he passed me by...
And as for taking drugs - you might as well play Russian roulette...
I wouldn't call anyone a loon for taking drugs, an idiot maybe.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 3 Feb 14 at 13:59
|
>> Maybe a 'great actor'
More an up-and-coming character actor really. The TV obit stuff was a bit over the top... one referred to the 'canon' of his work as if he had been Shakespeare or an old master painter...
|
>> Who but a loon would try the stuff, knowing the likely consequences?
Someone curious and adventurous enough to want to form their own opinion, having perceived the shrill falsity of the official line? That's why I tried it. I'm certainly no more of a loon than you are Roger. But I have to say I'm glad it wasn't really my cup of tea. Heroin addiction does make people a bit boring, one-track-minded as well as permanently constipated.
I suppose the real risk in trying heroin is that you might turn out to really like it. Some do.
|
>> Heroin addiction does make people a bit boring, one-track-minded
>> as well as permanently constipated.
...and unless they are naturally well off, somewhat light fingered as well.
|
>> unless they are naturally well off, somewhat light fingered as well.
Indeed... having to pay through the nose for variable, unreliable product puts a strain on the finances of someone who usually isn't working. That's why junkies were less criminal when this country had its civilized opiate control system, as well as healthier.
|
>> I think that people who become addicted to drugs suffer from a defect in their
>> personality.
>> Who but a loon would try the stuff, knowing the likely consequences?
The obvious question to me too. Even allowing AC's valid point that the official line is propaganda, it's no secret that it wrecks at least some lives and families, and kills some people, or that street drugs are of variable concentration and adulterated with who knows what.
So I wonder what is in people's minds at the point they think "I'll try this", whether it's pills or powder, swallowed, injected or smoked.
I suppose a sort of bias applies if you live in that world - you probably know people who do it repeatedly, and don't die, so you think it's safe to at least have a go.
Loons is pretty fair though.
Where were we? Oh yes, I hadn't heard of him either. The boss had, she's more of a culture vulture than I.
|
>> Loons is pretty fair though.
As a description of people who will try street stuff without proper information or supervision, yes.
I wasn't a loon like that at all. I knew that a few toots or shots of heroin wouldn't enslave me to the stuff and that some weeks of regular use are needed to form a proper habit. I never took any that wasn't pure NHS stuff (it came in tiny sixth-of-a-grain pills known as 'jacks') and I was given it by proper friends who had habits and wouldn't have let me overdose.
Best, and least loony, of all was the fact I didn't enjoy it, except on one occasion when it was mixed with cocaine. But people with deep psychological problems, people in constant subliminal physical or psychic pain, are at real risk of addiction. To them, removal of that pain feels like pleasure.
|
"Who but a loon would try the stuff, knowing the likely consequences?"
Same sort of people who take up smoking or drinking really. i.e. pretty much anybody if that's what your circle of friend do.
|
|
If you are prepared to inject a substance into your arm, quality, concentration and purity unknown, with no good medical reason for doing so then addled seems a good description of your mental state to me.
|
|
I am Meldrew! Give me a break!
|
|
Sorry Meldrew. I thought it was just me that had never heard of him, but I don't do celebrity. I see AC's point and don't disagree with it. But why were the the Beeb eulogising him ? One more dead actor.
|
>>But why
>> were the the Beeb eulogising him ?
>>
Everyone gets eulogised when they are dead, unless they become postumously signed up to Yewtree.
All the teenagers killed in car crashes were gifted, with bubbly outgoing characters, and a wonderful future just tragically cut off.
Dud actors, boring friendless teenagers, people in dead-end jobs, never die, apparently.
|
>> All the teenagers killed in car crashes were gifted, with bubbly outgoing characters, and a
>> wonderful future just tragically cut off.
You forgot the local scumbag...you know, the cheeky chappy with a great sense of humour and a heart of gold....unless it's your place he's nicking from.
|
>> Sorry Meldrew. I thought it was just me that had never heard of him, but
>> I don't do celebrity. I see AC's point and don't disagree with it. But why
>> were the the Beeb eulogising him ? One more dead actor.
>>
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?f=5&t=16319
Why were the Beeb eulogising him? One more dead singer.
As I commented in the thread - was it so important to be the number one item on the BBC Radio 4 eight o'clock news?
It's all about celebrity dah-ling.
|
|
To AC. Why the torpedo? Question for clarification. Never touched anything like heroin etc Living in the Far East for a while I was aware at age 11 that wizened not so old Chinese gentlemen were living testimony to the effects. The current stance of moralistic disapproval has the ring of vested interests. You never know what BiB get on the side. Or how many favours are owed.
Last edited by: NIL on Mon 3 Feb 14 at 14:08
|
>> Why the torpedo? Question for clarification.
Nothing I say should be taken as gospel. One can always be wrong. But my strong impression was that our NHS control system, which I believe had been running in similar form for years before the NHS existed, was ended under pressure from across the Atlantic with claims that the system encouraged widening opiate use - the opposite of the truth actually, as the proliferation of today's ratty inner-city addicts testifies.
In the years on either side of 1960 when I dabbled in these things, the system worked in a strangely public/private way that now seems very modern. The junkies used to get their prescriptions from a few doctors who used to charge private fees for writing them (I imagine many more got scripts from their own GPs). Then they would get the stuff from the chemist, labelled I think 'diacetyl morphine'. Oddly, registered addicts could also get 'cocaine hydrochloride' in small vials of crystals. Aficionados said it wasn't as good as decent street coke. But since cocaine isn't addicting in the way opiates are it seemed a bit gratuitous to give them coke as well, except to make their lives more pleasurable. Not that I am complaining. That seems to me a good thing to do.
:o}
|
|
I actually agree with legalising opiates and other "drugs"
|
|
Thanks AC. Just wondered what was behind the phrase. I worked (very junior) in NHS admin for a few years, and got the impression that criminalising drug trade (which was what happened when NHS was prevented from prescribing) ought to be avoided. Just imagine the benefits if synthetic opioides were available, and regulated. Drug barons would be unable to get their easy money. Immature rebels would be put off. Grocer tricks would be eliminated. My nephew might still be alive.
Last edited by: NIL on Mon 3 Feb 14 at 16:34
|
|
My sentiments exactly NIL
|
I am certainly not a film buff, though my diary tells me that I went to our local Picture House cinema 38 times last year (a few visits were for theatrical productions). I had never heard of the poor chap :-(
Mind you, I don't seem to have heard of many of the current crop of so-called celebrities.
R.I.P.
|
|
It is all down to willpower and attitude, I was addicted to cigarettes for many years but stopped smoking. Some years ago I was prescribed Pethadine and had access to lots of it but had no problems using or coming off it. Recently I was prescribed oral morphine, I had enough in the house to put an elephant into orbit but only used enough to do its job and returned the unused drugs. I have no sympathy for drug addicts.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Mon 3 Feb 14 at 16:34
|
It gave you no pleasure ON, although from yr account it must have given you pain relief. I'm glad you don't need morphine any more and long may it remain so.
I'm like you. Never enjoyed opiates except morphine in hospital when I needed it. Every attempt to try them for amusement made me throw up, every single one.
I have more sympathy for drug addicts than you do though. No one's perfect.
:o}
|
When reading some comments on this thread I can't help but conjure up images of a bunch of red-neck American Football fans scratching their heads at the news of George Best's passing and bellowing "what's this all about...I'VE never heard of him!" with great satisfaction.
No doubt there are plenty of people loudly proclaiming that they've never even heard of Michael Schumacher...as if their ignorance of him somehow diminishes his achievements.
Isn't it slightly ironic that the same people condemning the cult of celebrity, won't consider somebody worthy of coverage, or consider that they might have been good at their trade, unless they have personally heard of them?
|
The Lad, who's no film buff, was aware of him in both Charlie Wilson's war and at least one of the Hunger Games series.
I have impression that he was not a bill topping name but a mature professional Thespian capable of a wide range of supporting roles and not by any means stuck in one persona.
|
|
Simon Jenkins has written a suitably hand-wringing article in his paper - People have choices I suppose.
|
"Isn't it slightly ironic that the same people condemning the cult of celebrity, won't consider somebody worthy of coverage, or consider that they might have been good at their trade, unless they have personally heard of them?"
Disagree - it's the media love-in that gets on my wick. Baftas, pre-Baftas, Bafta nominations etc. all seem to get media coverage ad nauseam. The media publicising the media - brilliant for them.
" .... consider that they might have been good at their trade..." If the world's best plumber, bricklayer or school dinner lady died in such circumstances we'd never know.
Just because these people can act a bit they seem to get publicity out of proportion to their skills and worth to the planet.
|
|
Maximilian Schell was a better actor, won an Oscar and has just died. Compare and contrast the coverage.
|
>> Maximilian Schell was a better actor, won an Oscar and has just died. Compare and
>> contrast the coverage.
Was he a better actor? Perhaps, perhaps not. What are your criteria? Hoffman was certainly an extremely good actor, and perhaps most of the thumbs up are from people who (only a few hours ago) claim to have never heard of Hoffman. Hardly a qualified audience.
As for the coverage, is it not perhaps understandable that (all other things being equal) the death of an 83 year old actor, from natural causes, might get slightly less coverage than that of a 46 year old actor dying from a drug overdose?
Schell's film career was hardly cut short, after all.
|
>> Just because these people can act a bit they seem to get publicity out of
>> proportion to their skills and worth to the planet.
It's not because they can act a bit, it's because they are quite well known.
Seems reasonable to report on to me - it's reasonable to assume a lot of people (millions) will know of him and his work and be interested, unlike the highly skilled plumber who, however skilled he is, is unlikely to be of interest to a large number.
Ignorami such as I will be interested because he was well known, but not by us!
The boss said immediately "Oh, he played Truman Capote" (I have heard of him).
The other reason for lengthy obits besides fame is general outstandingness. One of my favourites was Dame Miriam Rothschild's - would that bring on Meldrewism?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1481852/Dame-Miriam-Rothschild.html
|
>> Just because these people can act a bit they seem to get publicity out of proportion to their skills and worth to the planet.
A bit harsh that. Applause is one of the things due to showbiz people who aren't all overpaid by any means.
Point taken of course that all skills honestly exercised are worthy and in a sense 'equal'. But a comedian might appreciate a bit of laughter and clapping. If you cheered and clapped the work of a carpenter or bricklayer he might suspect satirical intent and set about you with a mallet or hod.
But I did think referring to the 'canon' of this cat's 'oeuvre' was a bit much.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 3 Feb 14 at 18:42
|
|
I was lucky when it came to drugs. I smoked a few joints when I was in my teens and it did nothing for me, except to blot out the half hour afterwards when I had no memory of what I'd been doing. I found the smell awful too so was never tempted to move on the anything stronger.
|
|
every time I tried drugs It made me very very ill or completely off my head in san unpleasant (to me) way. Decided not to bother any more. Even now a bit of blow makes me vomit.
|
A bit of 'Blow' makes my eyes go around in circles:-)
NEVER done any drugs or smoke. Only Ale and Wine.
|
Sounds as if some of you cats never found anything half-way decent.
My sympathies of course, but alas, I am unable to help you nowadays. My body is a temple. No doubt your bodies are all temples too... willy-nilly, eh?
|
>> I found the smell awful too so was never tempted to move on the anything stronger.
The myth of people 'moving on to something stronger' when they have tried a bit of amphetamine or weed is a persistent piece of deliberate misinformation wrapped in the public or media discourse on 'drugs'. No offence to you R O'R because the myth has been propagated with truly demonic insistence.
Drugs aren't 'stronger' than each other in a continuum from Preludin (anyone remember Prels?) to dirty heroin and heart-attack crack. They are quite simply all different, with different effects and different 'pathologies' if you like.
|
>> >> I found the smell awful too so was never tempted to move on the
>> anything stronger.
>>
>> The myth of people 'moving on to something stronger' when they have tried a bit
>> of amphetamine or weed is a persistent piece of deliberate misinformation wrapped in the public
>> or media discourse on 'drugs'. No offence to you R O'R because the myth has
>> been propagated with truly demonic insistence.
>>
>> Drugs aren't 'stronger' than each other in a continuum from Preludin (anyone remember Prels?) to
>> dirty heroin and heart-attack crack. They are quite simply all different, with different effects and
>> different 'pathologies' if you like.
>>
The War on Drugs is not intended as a war to win.
It's a deliberate attempt to ensure the prices of illegal drugs are kept high so drug barons can make superprofits. And to keep a large number of people gainfully employed either distributing such drugs or playing at stopping their sale and consumption.
Oh and although drug taking is illegal - especially Class A- there is always some reason not to prosecute white middle class users . See Kate Moss and Nigella Lawson.
I am sure - as I have said before - a small proportion of illegal drug profits finds its way into the coffers of Drug Prevention Agencies.
Legalisation of drugs would be a disaster for the Mafia, Columbia , Mexico and UK drug barons... The most capitalist country in the world is strongly against legalisation : the profit motive wins OK.
|
>> the profit motive wins OK.
Heh heh... 'Thou hast said it', madf. One might disagree with the odd detail but that is broadly the size of it.
|
I don't suppose you are madf, but if you were in the market for heroin and cocaine who would you rather get them from: the NHS or the 'Ndrangheta?
:o}
|
>> I don't suppose you are madf, but if you were in the market for heroin
>> and cocaine who would you rather get them from: the NHS or the 'Ndrangheta?
>>
>> :o}
>>
I think ,AC, that is what is known as a False Choice :-)
|
Becoming a Meldrew ? - Dulwich Estate
