Now Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead. Another one on the list. Sad. Definitely sad.
But, you know, it occurs to me that no one would die of recreational drug overdoses if everyone would just stop using them.
I have always thought recreational drug use was, at best, silly. I'm not going to take some high-road moral stance about it. To me, it has always been embarrassingly inane to do something in order, simply, to make one's self feel goofy. It seems so damned puerile to me.
People will argue about the whole "opening of the mind" thing. Of course, everyone who is not someone who is trying to make a dignified excuse for making himself feel goofy is aware that this is nonsense. Drugs artificially open and expand the mind, then they leave damage and residual confusion and mental instability in their wake, if not worse. And, often, they leave people dead, in which state it becomes fairly irrelevant as to how open the mind is, what with it being non-functional. So there is that.
The use of recreational drugs is silly. It's childish. It is the height of frivolity.
Sure, the members of the Church of Hemp will argue, "It is not a gateway drug!" Physiologically speaking, maybe it is not. In fact, my understanding is that it is not addictive, physically. But this whole concept of taking drugs just to feel goofy for fun is a particular mindset and that mindset is lame.
Some people will smoke weed and never wind up doing anything more dangerous. We can't deny that. But since no one can really know, without field testing the stuff, if he or she has an addictive personality, why risk it?
It just makes no sense, in the grand scheme, to start it up, to begin with.
I'm pretty sure Hoffman didn't begin with injecting stuff into his veins. Now he's dead.
I do feel sorry for those who succumb to addiction, but I still feel they are responsible for not having applied a little logic to their lives, early on: If there is any chance smoking this might lead me into a life of addiction, is it worth the risk? (For the record, I don't think skydiving is an acceptable risk, either.)
I know, I know: "Jeez, Chris -- don't you ever take any risks? How are you going to live life to the fullest?" Well, to me risk has to be of an acceptable level. To me "living life to the fullest" is not a question of risking my neck for a temporary thrill. Living life to the fullest is breathing deeply of the fresh air; spending time with my kids; exploring my arts as far as I can; feeling my heart leap up as my dog runs in an open field at high speed; loving my wife with all of my (intact) mind, body and soul. It certainly isn't about feeling goofy for a night or about jumping off of a cliff into a damp sponge just for the adrenaline rush.
Now, hiking in a remote place, where there are wild animals, in order to see the wonders of Nature? That, I can do. The reward is worth the risk. So it's not all about sitting on the couch with the doors locked.
Maybe the simplest way to put is, at least for me is: One should do a thing for the experience, not just for the physical feeling of having done it. If the feeling is good, that it okay, but to seek only the physical feeling cheapens the experience itself. (Drink beer because it is yummy, not just to get drunk; make love for love's sake, not for mere physical release, etc.) And if the experience of doing is not even part of the equation, then the feeling is a simple, worthless, self indulgence, especially when the long-term result can be death.
Hoffman is a great loss to the world of acting. He was a brilliant thespian and he seemed like good guy. But we need to stop glorifying these people; or, at least, to stop painting them as Romantically tortured geniuses who couldn't cope with the cold world. All of us have an obligation, to ourselves and out loved ones, to be smart with our lives.
Recreational drugs are dumb. That's all there is to it for me. And if one in ten million people is going to wind up like Hoffman, the risk is not worth the reward.