OK might as well throw my hat in the ring... I will speak in what I see are facts.
Fact#1 PSH was a versatile, accomplished actor with numerous accolades to his resume', which in turn means he was an intelligent human being.
Fact#2 He was an addict. Sought treatment, became sober and then at some point relapsed...chronology uncertain on that timeline.
Fact#3 He had a family to provide for.
It is my OPINION that given the above facts, that PSH was a selfish and egocentric moron.
#1 He knew the value and importance of sobriety at some point. I reiterate that you have to be an intelligent person to be able to produce the acting ability that he was able.
#2 I don't conform to the "addictive personality" mantra. He knew what he was doing, he knew he shouldn't, but nothing else mattered to him more than that high. I say selfish, because he was aware of the risks and consequences that may befall him and I say egocentric because, as with most addicts, he thought he was in control of that. He wasn't. Is is tragic? Yes. It is tragic that his children will know that he was a talented, accomplished, God gifted individual, who unfortunately cared a lot about getting high. We all come to some sort of revelation of one sort or another in our lives. We all have pain. The simple fact that others who have been through far more than I can ever fathom, atrocities that are unimaginable do not find a need to crawl into a needle is all I have to know about "addictive personalities" it is a coping mechanism. He chose to cope with whatever he was dealing with in a needle... the first time and the last time too. He could afford it. It was made readily available to him. So he did it. He chose to use that to cope. It was a choice the first time and it was a choice the last time. So in that same breath what is OK to be addicted to? What is acceptable as an addiction, and still be given the luxury of hiding behind the ruse that it is a "disease". Alcoholism? Social acceptable...common...support groups? Sure.. no shame in that. Pornography? Is that an addiction? Maybe. No law against it? Pedophilia? Serial Rapists? Mass murderers? Would we be mourning the loss of a rapist who dies in the commission of his crime? Is it getting less acceptable now? Are they too just "misunderstood"? It's an addiction right... it's their "personality". It's not their fault... BS. I can't believe that this forum has come to this, but I could not sit here and listen to rationalizing this as a disease. Too many diseases take too many people. Cancer, ALS, MS, I could go on. You want to sully the struggle of those survivors and victims by labeling an over indulged junkie as a victim of disease? I won't. He was a great actor but a selfish man, and that's not a disease.
Fact#1 PSH was a versatile, accomplished actor with numerous accolades to his resume', which in turn means he was an intelligent human being.
Fact#2 He was an addict. Sought treatment, became sober and then at some point relapsed...chronology uncertain on that timeline.
Fact#3 He had a family to provide for.
It is my OPINION that given the above facts, that PSH was a selfish and egocentric moron.
#1 He knew the value and importance of sobriety at some point. I reiterate that you have to be an intelligent person to be able to produce the acting ability that he was able.
#2 I don't conform to the "addictive personality" mantra. He knew what he was doing, he knew he shouldn't, but nothing else mattered to him more than that high. I say selfish, because he was aware of the risks and consequences that may befall him and I say egocentric because, as with most addicts, he thought he was in control of that. He wasn't. Is is tragic? Yes. It is tragic that his children will know that he was a talented, accomplished, God gifted individual, who unfortunately cared a lot about getting high. We all come to some sort of revelation of one sort or another in our lives. We all have pain. The simple fact that others who have been through far more than I can ever fathom, atrocities that are unimaginable do not find a need to crawl into a needle is all I have to know about "addictive personalities" it is a coping mechanism. He chose to cope with whatever he was dealing with in a needle... the first time and the last time too. He could afford it. It was made readily available to him. So he did it. He chose to use that to cope. It was a choice the first time and it was a choice the last time. So in that same breath what is OK to be addicted to? What is acceptable as an addiction, and still be given the luxury of hiding behind the ruse that it is a "disease". Alcoholism? Social acceptable...common...support groups? Sure.. no shame in that. Pornography? Is that an addiction? Maybe. No law against it? Pedophilia? Serial Rapists? Mass murderers? Would we be mourning the loss of a rapist who dies in the commission of his crime? Is it getting less acceptable now? Are they too just "misunderstood"? It's an addiction right... it's their "personality". It's not their fault... BS. I can't believe that this forum has come to this, but I could not sit here and listen to rationalizing this as a disease. Too many diseases take too many people. Cancer, ALS, MS, I could go on. You want to sully the struggle of those survivors and victims by labeling an over indulged junkie as a victim of disease? I won't. He was a great actor but a selfish man, and that's not a disease.