As IF Times

link Ashleigh Banfield: Philip Seymour Hoffmans Dealer Deserves To Go Away For Life.

Notwithstanding the outpouring of sympathy expressed at Hoffman’s untimely death by drug misadventure, the real tragedy that is missed by most pundits is that the guy chose to risk his life despite the consequences to his family.  Well that was cold.  But few are willing to say it. Hoffman had it all going for him; a small family, a good and lucrative career, respect and admiration by his peers.  However like many afflicted artists before him, the lure of the altered state was too much to overcome.  An admitted long time substance abuser, he was trapped in the real life role he couldn’t quit. Maybe he thought drug addiction only happened to others.

Hardly a year goes by without an incidence of yet another entertainer succumbing to misadventure by recreational drug use.  But for every famous entertainer that is overwhelmed by drug tragedy, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of regular folk that suffer without the attendant publicity.  Their families suffer in silence.   It’s tragic.  But it’s free choice.  Hoffmann at least had the means to get help.

It’s fashionable these days to embrace the live and let live view of a truly libertarian society.   People can do what they want and indulge in virtually anything without fear of public judgement from others. It’s like hedonism is the new black. Those that can afford it will indulge in things not accessible to those of more modest means.   Recreational drugs seem to be at the top of the wish list judging by the clamor to liberalize pot laws in many states.  Paradoxically, cigarette smokers continue to be socially marginalized whereas the acceptance of pot smoking grows.   Smoke is smoke.  What’s the difference?  Cocaine and increasingly, heroin seem to be the choice of the chic set.

Just recently, an accomplished Calgary medical doctor named David Stather was killed while pursuing his hobby of BASE jumping when his winged suit’s parachute malfunctioned. This sucks of course.  But at least the guy was free to do what he wanted and that activity satisfied his adrenaline craving.   People die from parachute jumps, bungee cord leaps, mountain climbing, car racing, deep sea fishing, surfing, skiing and even the ridiculous ‘sport’ of longboarding.  If you are of the libertarian mindset, as we all think we are, then people should be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter the incumbent risk.  Just don’t blame others when things go awry.

Unless Hoffman (or anyone) was entirely clueless and naïve, he knew that narcotics were harmful and dangerous beyond any recreational amusement derived from its use.  From the very first experience, to the next or the one after that, it must have occurred to him that heroin would be addictive.  As the old saying goes, when wrestling with a gorilla, it stops when the gorilla feels like stopping.  No doubt, like many, he probably fell into drug use because of peer pressure and fashion. While Ms. Banfield’s sentiments are expected, they are misplaced.  She is right, the dealers do deserve to go away for life; they illegally sell dangerous substances.  Hoffman however was free and able to do as he wished, there can be no guarantee that there wouldn’t be consequences.  It’s like blaming the ground when someone falls from a tree.  Blaming the drug dealers, however odious they are, is shifting the blame for Hoffman’s risky behaviour from himself, where it belongs, to them.  Drug dealers are not boy scouts.  It’s in vogue these days for people to claim personal rights but then to blame others for the  consequences.  It’s immaturity or it’s an a abundance of lawyers, or both.

Only so many figurative warning signs can be put up in life before it no longer remains a free society.  People will gamble their life savings on red 22, or sell their homes for Bitcoins.  Prudent? Maybe not, but there is no law (yet) that you have to make smart decisions.   Of course it’s tragic when someone passes before their time. But it’s much more tragic for those that have no say in the matter.  Hoffmann was not one of those.

link Marijuana Crushes Grapes as Cash Crop | NBC Bay Area.

Quite often we hear speculation on the value of the marijuana crop in California.  On the surface of it, there is some logic to the argument.  If there is such an insatiable demand for it, why not legalize it, tax it and voila, the whole criminal environment disappears and Mexico goes back to selling trinkets to tourists.  Of course, the British Columbia economy would be dealt a pretty hefty blow as well.   The gangs there would have to go back to stealing cars.

It is curious though as to how the estimates of value are calculated.  Do law enforcement people actually know where the crops are planted and they simply tally them?  Do pot growers volunteer information in an anonymous census?  It stands to reason that if they know enough about the crop size to count ’em, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they could be destroyed, given that for the moment, the crop is still illegal?  According to NORML, a pro marijuana lobby group, much of the estimate comes from extrapolation of crops seized by authorities in any given year,  http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444#cropvalue   On this website, you will find many arguments offered in support of legalizing the crop including the benefit of not spending tax dollars on enforcement.

Detractors can argue that this may be the beginning of a slippery slope. Why not look at legalizing all sorts of vices presently considered undesirable, notably prostitution which has been around for a while as well.  These kinds of discussions can never be won.  There is only pro and con.  However in the case of pot legalization, this would logically lead to legalization of the next level of recreational drugs such as cocaine and heroin.  Heck, if we decriminalized everything which is considered socially unacceptable just because it’s expensive to police, why have laws against anything?  Why waste money and time on things such as seatbelt  and helmet laws and baby seat laws.  Why have customs and border laws?

It’s pretty fair to state that demand for recreational drugs of all sorts stems mainly from the western countries, notably the U.S.  It’s a mystery that nations with all the wealth, intelligence and industrial and commercial might would beget such demand for altered states chemicals.  As if that were the pinnacle of achievement in an affluent society, the right and freedom to dope out.  The fact that many countries hostile to the U.S. use the proceeds of drug sales to fund military campaigns against the U.S., as for example in the case of  Afghanistan, truly supports the notion that drugs are suicidal to western interests. 

Technically, the phrase enshrined in the US constitution about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” would cover the proclivity for people to get high although that was probably not the original  intent of the proclamation.   It would be curious to know if the drug problem afflicting western countries is present in developing countries such as China, or India.  If so, it isn’t as obvious as it is in our culture as demonstrated by numerous popular movies in which stonies are portrayed as harmless lovable dopeheads.  We celebrate that here. But we also glorify lots of other stupid things.  Jackass 3D has recently received big box office numbers on its recent release.  This franchise essentially glorifies the suicidal antics of some self destructive young men. 

The debate over whether to legalize pot because of pragmatism is contentious.  Bringing the drug into the mainstream like wine or tobacco can solve a lot of problems, but will undoubtedly create many others, notably addiction and related health issues.  If people argue that pot is not addictive, why don’t people quit even as other legal substances are readily available?  The bigger issue to be addressed is why an affluent and educated society feels the need to live in altered states.  The influence of voters will ultimately determine how they wish their society to be structured and at the moment, the impetus for legalization is growing.  The amounts of money saved by not having to enforce possession laws will undoubtedly be a boon to budgets.  Ironically, regulation and red tape may kill the business worse than being an illegal enterprise.   My bet though is that this ‘solution’ will bring with it many unforeseen consequences.