[My earlier comment]
>First you say that the belief that Hendrix was a drug addict is a
>"big lie." Then you say he did "ALOT" of drugs.
>I have several questions:
>1. When does doing "ALOT" of drugs cross the line into abuse
>or addiction?
[Wally's reply]
>I'm not competent to give an authoritative answer to this question: I
>do not know. According to the official autopsy Jimi Hendrix "was not
>addicted to heroin at the time of his death'. There was no heroin in
>Jimis autopsied body. There is absolutely NO documented evidence
>that he was EVER addicted to heroin. It's an 'Urban Myth'. A falsehood.
>A lie.
Hmm, there are still some issues here. First of all, I question
whether the fact that there was no heroin in his body at the
time of his death can establish that he was NEVER addicted
to heroin.
Secondly, the original proposition you labeled a "big lie" was that
he was a "drug addict" -- not a heroin addict. There are other
addictive drugs besides heroin, so the autopsy as you cite it
certainly does not disprove the belief that he had an addiction
problem.
[My earlier comment]
>2. I'm no Hendrix historian, but didn't he die of an overdose?
[Wally's reply]
>Quoting from the death certificate, Jimi Hendrix died of 'inhalation
>of vomit'. He'd been unable to sleep and was given some sleeping pills.
>After taking a few and still remaining sleepless, he took a few more;
>seven in all. Sleeping on his back, after vomiting in his sleep he was
>unable to roll over and so suffocated.
Are we to believe his death was unrelated to a history of drug
abuse? Insomnia is often a consequence of addiction. The
vomiting episode appears to be the end result of a chain of
consequences beginning with drug abuse.
[My earlier comment]
>Or is this belief another "big lie"?
[Wally's reply]
>This belief is the big lie I was referring to, yes.
I don't believe that you have adequately established that the
belief that he was an addict should be written off as an
"urban myth" or "big lie."
[My earlier comment]
>3. Regardless of the ethnic characteristics of users, and putting
>aside issues of criminalization, is recreational drug use a healthful
>practice?
[Wally's reply]
>Your point being, I presume, that recreational drug use is NOT 'a healthful
>practice'? As Angelica Huston put it:
>"Of course drugs were fun. And that's what's so stupid about
>anti-drug campaigns:They don't admit that. I can't say I feel
>particularly scarred or lessened by my experimentation with drugs.
>They've gotten a very bad name."
My point was to ask your opinion -- not to draw a conclusion.
>I would personally echo her sentiments. Like anything else, one persons
>use is anothers abuse. For every person you can point to who died of
>'drugs' (do you include booze in your anti-drug philosophy?), I can point
>to one who survived and profited from the experience.
It's an oversimplification to say that I have an "anti-drug" philosophy.
I personally think that laws against the use of recreational drugs
should be lifted. Prohibition obviously doesn't work, and adults
should have the freedom to do unhealthy things to themselves.
On the other hand, I do believe that recreational drug use is
unhealthful in the long run, and potential users should be made
aware of the risks. An educational campaign along the lines of
what is being done about tobacco would be appropriate within an
environment of legalized recreational drugs.
>But, for the sake of discussion (only), I will concede this point:
>*Recreational drug use is not a 'healthy practice'.*
>So?
Your reply, qualified by the phrase "for the sake of discussion
(only)" is vague.
If you agree that recreational drug use is unhealthful, then I think
it is of little value to glamourize Jimi Hendrix while attempting to
minimize the negative affects of drug abuse on his health. Drug
abuse appears to have been a prominent factor in his death.
-- Michael Wright