- Philip Seymour Hoffman's death was not on the bill.
If it'd been the sacrifice of Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber, that we are invited to anticipate daily, we could delight in the Faustian justice of the righteous dispatch of a fast-living, sequin-spattered denizen of eMpTyV. We are tacitly instructed to await their demise with necrophilic sanctimony. When the end comes, they screech on Fox and TMZ, it will be deserved. The Mail provokes indignation, luridly baiting us with the sidebar that scrolls from the headline down to hell.
reddit/r/atheism was under the impression that Russel's teapot was Russel Brand's teapot so it is not like they don't secretly love the guy.
I really enjoy everything Brand writes, such that I even forgive him for making Hoffman's death into a political point, because it's a point needed and well-made. Philip Seymour Hoffman's death is a reminder, though, that addiction is indiscriminate. Very well put.Now we are aware that our drug laws aren't working and that alternatives are yielding positive results, why are we not acting? Tradition? Prejudice? Extreme stupidity? The answer is all three. Change is hard, apathy is easy, tradition is the narcotic of our rulers. The people who are most severely affected by drug prohibition are dispensable, politically irrelevant people. Poor people. Addiction affects all of us but the poorest pay the biggest price.
There is a fourth, which is related to prejudice, and that is political gain. Politicians have spent so many decades manufacturing prejudice that they are now rewarded by the populace in being merciless to sick people. It is evil.Now we are aware that our drug laws aren't working and that alternatives are yielding positive results, why are we not acting? Tradition? Prejudice? Extreme stupidity? The answer is all three.