Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead

[Deleted]

Hoffman, 46, was found unresponsive on the bathroom floor of his Greenwich Village apartment by police responding to an emergency 911 call, and Emergency Medical Service workers declared him dead on the scene, the New York City Police Department said in a statement. An investigation was ongoing.

The New York Times, citing a law enforcement official, said investigators found a syringe in Hoffman’s arm and an envelope containing what was believed to be heroin.

A police department source told Reuters that Hoffman had died of an apparent drug overdose.

Great career, 3 kids, a needle full of heroin stuck in his arm...IDIOT!

ETA - link

[Deleted]

Such a shame!  

[Opti]

I read an article that said he had I lifelong love/issue with drugs. Which
I did not know. It does explain to me, professional actor in progress, why
he was so good at those complex parts.


Other notable deaths in the cinema community include a 105/106 yr. old
Chinese guy. Run Run Shaw or something like that. He assisted on Blade
Runner and his first film was in 1931.

[Sam_2.0]

If he had died from cancer, people would be saying what a terrible tragedy it was. Mental illness/addiction is the same in my eyes. It is sad that he was not able to get the help he needed to break away from this addiction. It is horribly sad for his friends and family as well. I would hate for the public to be criticizing how my sick loved one died.

[Deleted]

Addiction is not cancer. He had been clean for decades and he knew what he had to do to stay that way. I'm not calling his family to say this, I'm not even posting it anywhere there is a chance they would see it. But I am sick of these celebrity druggies being made into martyrs when they kill themselves.

[HoneyBBQ]

Feb 3, 2014 10:56:06 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Addiction is not cancer. He had been clean for decades and he knew what he had to do to stay that way.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand addiction.

1 day is the same as 1 year is the same as 10 years clean to these guys.

I generally don't really care when these hollywood actors die/od/whatever... but I do feel a bit sad because this guy really was a fantastic actor. And he has a young family. I feel badly for them.

[Deleted]

I understand addiction. He knew what he needed to do to stay clean. And he does have a young family, that are going to have to grow up with the story of Daddy dieing with a needle in his arm.

[NancysSummerSip]

He had not been clean for decades, actually. He admitted to a relapse last year and went into rehab in May of 2013.

This is from the L.A. Times, May 31, 2013:

Report: Philip Seymour Hoffman completes detox after heroin relapse
May 31, 2013|By Nardine Saad

Philip Seymour Hoffman has left a detox center that he entered to get ahead of drug problems that are said to have been spinning out of control, according to reports.

"The Master" actor revealed to TMZ that he'd started using drugs again about a year ago, starting off with prescription pills then escalating to snorting heroin. He said the heroin use only lasted about a week, but he decided to check himself into a detox facility on the East Coast to take control of the problem.

And while he may have spend long periods of time without drugs in his system, you are never not an addict. You simply are not using for a given time. You are always an addict in the present tense. The issue is always there, the temptation under control, being dealt with, but ever-present. And while he may have been a lot of things, he was not an idiot. On the contrary, he was an excellent actor and from all accounts, a very good father, friend and companion. But he was also an addict, with all the personality traits that come along with that. Selfish enough to want drugs to the extent of all else we may deem logical, sensible and correct in life? To us as non-users, it would seem so. His children may well grow up to think so. Another addict, looking at him, will understand, as will someone who has dealt with this behavior. I'm thinking DramaQ, whose husband has faced this, will offer some insights.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Knowing what you need to do and being able to do it continuously are two different things.  He struggled with this problem for a long time, in an environment where a lot of people do as well (to varying degrees of healthiness/unhealthiness).  He lost the struggle, and that's a tragedy. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

This was going by on the CNN ticker this morning, apparently Heroin is extremely hard to kick once you get started. 

While he may have defeated older demons he apparently picked up a new one.  Lots of addicts do that unfortunately.

[NancysSummerSip]

Feb 3, 2014 11:36:51 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Knowing what you need to do and being able to do it continuously are two different things.  He struggled with this problem for a long time, in an environment where a lot of people do as well (to varying degrees of healthiness/unhealthiness).  He lost the struggle, and that's a tragedy. 

Rocky, you have an important point. The environment is key as well. I am not blaming or holding the environment responsible for an addict's success or lack thereof. No one can do that. The final say in staying drug-free has to come from within. But the battle to do so can be tipped one way or the other, depending on the surroundings. I saw a snippet of an interview in which Hoffman mentioned that he thought everyone had a bit of insanity inside of them; he did not specifically say such insanity was limited to those in his chosen profession. He may have been right, and it may be that the arts professions either have more of those with more of that insanity, or the professions simply draw the insanity to the surface. I'm not sure which it is.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Creative people, too, have often struggled with demons that many non-creative types don't have as much of.  I don't know if the demons cause the creativity, or the creativity causes the demons.  It seems a bit of a circle, sadly. 

Plus, it seems like in the rich and/or celebrity circles, drugs and alcohol are more prevalent, making things harder for a person who's struggled with the problem already. 

[Deleted]

No they don't! They indulge them more! This guy is not tragic, or glamourous or creative. He stopped doing what he needed to do to stay clean. And his kids are going to pay for it.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

I never said his death was glamorous or creative, but it is a tragedy.  Is it a tragedy that could have been avoided?  Probably, I'm not one to judge his situation.  But that still makes it a tragedy.  I'm not glamorizing it, I'm simply stating that it's tragic and too often happens in the environment he was in. 

Tragedy:  a very bad event that causes great sadness and often involves someone's death.  A very sad, unfortunate, or upsetting situation : something that causes strong feelings of sadness or regret.  A play, movie, etc., that is serious and has a sad ending (such as the death of the main character)

As for the man, yes, he was creative. You may question whether or not people of his bent have struggles with more or fewer inner demons than others, but he was definitely a creative type.

[Deleted]

SHEESH! Why all the anger?

Is it because he was famous? The guy fell off the wagon and paid for it with his life. Just like thousands of other non-famous people. Shall we scorn them too?

He was as imperfect as everyone else on this earth. I don't think we should be cussing him out for making a bad (and fatal) choice.  Besides, one shouldn't speak ill of the dead. 

(ETA: Fixed my typos)

[Deleted]

Later, I figured you would be more sympathetic than you are.

[Deleted]

I think the press overdid it when Heath Ledger died, but I haven't seen that kind of over reporting in this case.



I was busy watching the Super Bowl all day yesterday so maybe I missed something....

[hoops902]

Feb 3, 2014 11:17:05 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

Feb 3, 2014 10:56:06 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Addiction is not cancer. He had been clean for decades and he knew what he had to do to stay that way.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand addiction.

1 day is the same as 1 year is the same as 10 years clean to these guys.

I generally don't really care when these hollywood actors die/od/whatever... but I do feel a bit sad because this guy really was a fantastic actor. And he has a young family. I feel badly for them.

Addiction is not cancer (or at least it's not some cancers).  Addiction is cancer when that cancer is something caused by the individual with the full knowledge that cancer was possible (smokers with lung cancer, drinkers with liver cancer, tanners with skin cancer).  With plenty of cancers though, they just show up.  They aren't caused by something people are actively doing knowing cancer is a possibility.  No one just wakes up in their 20's one day addicted to heroin without ever deciding to try it.  There is a conscious decision to take the drug the first time.  That act can lead to addiction, just like smoking those cigarettes can lead to cancer.  But no one just wakes up randomly one morning and discovers they are addicted to drugs after a lifetime of never using them.

[hoops902]

Feb 3, 2014 13:01:43 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

I think the press overdid it when Heath Ledger died, but I haven't seen that kind of over reporting in this case.



I was busing watching the Super Bowl all day yesterday so maybe I missed something....

Agreed, though it had a lot more to do with the recent blockbuster role Ledger had than anything.  Hoffman isn't really that pop icon that Ledger became with the Joker.  Good actor, but certainly hasn't had that kind of pop culture role.

[Sam_2.0]

Feb 3, 2014 13:10:01 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Feb 3, 2014 11:17:05 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

Then I'm afraid you don't understand addiction.

1 day is the same as 1 year is the same as 10 years clean to these guys.

I generally don't really care when these hollywood actors die/od/whatever... but I do feel a bit sad because this guy really was a fantastic actor. And he has a young family. I feel badly for them.

Addiction is not cancer (or at least it's not some cancers).  Addiction is cancer when that cancer is something caused by the individual with the full knowledge that cancer was possible (smokers with lung cancer, drinkers with liver cancer, tanners with skin cancer).  With plenty of cancers though, they just show up.  They aren't caused by something people are actively doing knowing cancer is a possibility.  No one just wakes up in their 20's one day addicted to heroin without ever deciding to try it.  There is a conscious decision to take the drug the first time.  That act can lead to addiction, just like smoking those cigarettes can lead to cancer.  But no one just wakes up randomly one morning and discovers they are addicted to drugs after a lifetime of never using them.

Addiction is a mental "disease" (for lack of a better term) - the object of that addiction is irrelevant. So I don't believe that someone chooses to be an addict any more than someone chooses to get a physical ailment. Most addicts have personality traits or exhibit some signs before going straight to heroin. Which is why we need to pay a lot more attention to mental health in this country. Addiction can never be "cured" - it can just be placed into remission through proper treatment.

[HoneyBBQ]

Feb 3, 2014 13:10:01 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Feb 3, 2014 11:17:05 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

Then I'm afraid you don't understand addiction.

1 day is the same as 1 year is the same as 10 years clean to these guys.

I generally don't really care when these hollywood actors die/od/whatever... but I do feel a bit sad because this guy really was a fantastic actor. And he has a young family. I feel badly for them.

Addiction is not cancer (or at least it's not some cancers).  Addiction is cancer when that cancer is something caused by the individual with the full knowledge that cancer was possible (smokers with lung cancer, drinkers with liver cancer, tanners with skin cancer).  With plenty of cancers though, they just show up.  They aren't caused by something people are actively doing knowing cancer is a possibility.  No one just wakes up in their 20's one day addicted to heroin without ever deciding to try it.  There is a conscious decision to take the drug the first time.  That act can lead to addiction, just like smoking those cigarettes can lead to cancer.  But no one just wakes up randomly one morning and discovers they are addicted to drugs after a lifetime of never using them.

I never said addiction was cancer. I was referring to the post saying he knew what he had to do to stay clean. 

And I could argue - we know grilling food on a grill produces carcinogens. How many of you never eat a steak with the crispy black parts and grill lines? That's cancer for you. How about your produce? Is it 100% organic? Pesticides cause cancer, too. I guess those people know what they're getting into and should be more careful.

How many people blaming the deceased has had a close family member or friend or personally have battled addiction? It's easy to sit on the other side of the fence and say what people should do or that they knew better. Of course they should but it's not that easy. It's a destructive mental disease/illness/whatever that hurts the victim and everyone around them. Yes, you should be "angry" at the person for failing, but you should also have empathy. 

[midjd]

Think whatever you want about how PSH died, whether it was stupid, selfish, etc - just keep in mind he's the only one NOT around to hear it.

It is hard to grieve a death that could have been prevented, and even worse when others who weren't personally affected by it feel it's their place to pass judgment on the manner of death.

I doubt his friends or family read this site, but what if they did? They're the ones who have to live with his actions, not any of us.

[hoops902]

::Addiction is a mental "disease" (for lack of a better term) - the object of that addiction is irrelevant. So I don't believe that someone chooses to be an addict any more than someone chooses to get a physical ailment.::

No one chooses to be an addict, but one can certainly choose not to become addicted to drugs.  Barring children born addicted, i have yet to see any study anywhere that shows someone becoming a drug addict without ever having made the decision to try drugs (again, barring children born that way or someone forcibly made to try them). 

Whether he is an addict or not, he chose to do drugs the first time.  He was not addicted to drugs when he did them the first time.  When you choose to do drugs, you choose to take the risk that you will be addicted.  Just like when you choose to smoke you choose to take the risk you will develop lung cancer.  Those 2 things have far more user-created consequences than some guy who wakes up one day with brain cancer and no one has any idea why.

You don't become addicted to things you choose never to try.  I choose not to be addicted to heroin, how do i choose that?  I don't try it.  Simple.  It's not like he is addicted to water, and he HAS to have it to live and therefore must try it. 

[Tiny]

Feb 3, 2014 11:56:25 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Creative people, too, have often struggled with demons that many non-creative types don't have as much of.  I don't know if the demons cause the creativity, or the creativity causes the demons.  It seems a bit of a circle, sadly. 

Plus, it seems like in the rich and/or celebrity circles, drugs and alcohol are more prevalent, making things harder for a person who's struggled with the problem already. 

I think you are basing your argument on a fallacy.    We hear about 'creative' people's deaths because they 'celebrities' and in the news/media all the time.    That doesn't indicate that 'creative' people are more likely to have drug problems.   Kinda like how using someone's Aunt lived to be 95 even though she smoked a pack a day since she was 13 and drank a 5th of booze a day since she was 18 as  a rational for one's smoking/drinking not being harmful.     It leaves out the thousands who do the same actions and die early/young due to their unhealthy habits.   
 
What about the thousands of heroin addicts who suffer a near fatal or fatal overdose every year in America?  Is it because they are 'creative people'?  Or was Hoffman more ordinary than exceptional?

Here's an article with some numbers:
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/03/heroin-america-s-silent-assassin.html#url=/articles/2014/02/03/heroin-america-s-silent-assassin.html

[Tennesseer]

An addict can get all the outside help in the world for their addiction(s). But in the end, only the addict can save themself.

Unfortunately for PSH, he was not able to do so. He is now at peace with his demons.

[hoops902]

::It is hard to grieve a death that could have been prevented, and even worse when others who weren't personally affected by it feel it's their place to pass judgment on the manner of death.

I doubt his friends or family read this site, but what if they did? They're the ones who have to live with his actions, not any of us. ::

What if any of the random people in any number of articles we read and comment on post here?  Should we pass a rule that no one may say anything negative about anyone or anything ever "just in case" they happen to read these boards?

We aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences of someone who goes on a school shooting rampage, or someone who doesn't pay their bills and declares bankruptcy, or someone who beats their kids.  The point of a discussion board is a discussion of opinion.  It's not as if people are crashing his funeral to tell his family what a piece of shit this guy is.

[Tiny]

I find it interesting that there are never any statistics for people who have successfully beaten an addiction... there's always talk about 'going to rehab' but it seems there's never any indication that it's very successful. Perhaps the "friend for life" quip about an addiction is more true than false.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

I wasn't speaking about heroin specifically, but that creativity may be linked to many different types of mental disorders, which sometimes manifest in self-medication as well as other destructive tendencies:

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251568.php

Analysis provided evidence for the researchers' prior report, that bipolar disorder is more common in all individuals with artistic or scientific jobs, including researchers, dancers, photographers, and authors.

The majority of the other psychiatric diseases, such as depression, anxiety syndrome, schizophrenia, and substance abuse, were more prevalent among authors in particular. They also had a 50% higher chance of committing suicide compared to the general public.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Feb 3, 2014 13:35:55 GMT -5 Tiny said:

I find it interesting that there are never any statistics for people who have successfully beaten an addiction... there's always talk about 'going to rehab' but it seems there's never any indication that it's very successful. Perhaps the "friend for life" quip about an addiction is more true than false.

Given that Hoffman is an example of someone who appeared to have 'successfully beaten an addiction' for perhaps 20 years, there is no way to gauge that until a person passes away. 

[hoops902]

Feb 3, 2014 13:35:55 GMT -5 Tiny said:

I find it interesting that there are never any statistics for people who have successfully beaten an addiction... there's always talk about 'going to rehab' but it seems there's never any indication that it's very successful. Perhaps the "friend for life" quip about an addiction is more true than false.

I've seen stats about how long people have stayed clean after rehab, but yeah, it's impossible to say someone has "beaten" something that up until the day they day they can be considered to have relapsed and therefore "not beaten it".

You don't die a vegan if your last meal is steak.  Did you beat cigarettes if you gave them up for 40 years and then took it up again for the last 3 years of your life?  It's all fluid, you are what you are right now and that's really it.