by BJW Nashe
Addicts and alcoholics die all the time, with little or no public fanfare. When a celebrity is found dead of an apparent overdose — as Philip Seymour Hoffman was last weekend — this very personal tragedy becomes a big news story. The widespread shock and sadness is understandable. The inevitable finger-pointing, however, is problematic. And the criminal investigation which now has led to four people being arrested in connection with Hoffman’s death is seriously misguided.
We can only wonder what New York City law enforcement are hoping to accomplish by treating Hoffman’s death as a “crime” for which someone must be arrested and prosecuted. We all agree that the actor’s death is horrible — especially for his children and loved ones. But why must it also be a crime? Initial reports suggest that the investigation is little more than a public relations strategy in the wake of a high profile celebrity death — a cynical opportunity for the NYPD to show the world they are “tough on crime” when it comes to illegal drugs. Hence the urge to rush out and make some arrests.
According to the Associated Press, police received a tip from an informant who claimed to know where Hoffman may have purchased heroin in the days leading up to his death. Police were led to a particular apartment building in lower Manhattan, where they conducted a search of two residences. In one, police found hundreds of packets of heroin. In the other, they found some cocaine. Four people were arrested on drug-related charges. Yet it is unclear whether any of these individuals had any connection to Hoffman’s death.
The AP report provides the following details regarding the arrests:
“… Prosecutors declined to pursue charges against one of the four, saying there was no evidence that he had control of the drugs or the apartment in which they were found, and two of the others were charged only with a misdemeanor charge of possessing cocaine, not heroin. Only one, jazz musician Robert Vineberg, was facing a felony charge of heroin possession with intent to sell.
“All three of the people charged were indicted within a day after their arrests, a fairly unusual step, and were being held without bail. The two charged with cocaine possession, Juliana Luchkiw and Max Rosenblum, a couple who are neighbors of Vineberg’s, were visibly dismayed when a judge denied them bail, though their lawyers hoped to revisit the issue Thursday.”
Lawyers for the three suspects claim their clients had no role in Hoffman’s death, and have been swept up in a reckless investigation pursued in the glare of media attention following the actor’s demise. Robert Vineberg’s attorney, Edward Kratt, stated rhetorically that he hoped the District Attorney did not try to scapegoat his client for a highly publicized death. Ms. Luchkiw’s lawyer, Stephen Turano, said that his client is not a drug dealer; rather, she is a college student attending a design school. She and Rosenblum evidently had two bags of cocaine in their possession. Vineberg, on the other hand, had 300 packets of heroin, a bag of cocaine, and approximately $1,200 in cash. Vineberg’s heroin, however, did not provide an initial match with the drugs in Hoffman’s home. Whereas the heroin packets stashed in Hoffman’s apartment were stamped with the “Ace of Hearts” and the “Ace of Spades,” those found at Vineberg’s were identified as “Black List” and “Panda.” Apparently even drug dealers understand the importance of brand names these days.
From investigators, we now know that on the day before his death, Hoffman made six ATM withdrawals inside a supermarket near his residence, for a total of $1,200. Investigators are examining Hoffman’s belongings for clues, including a computer and two iPads, a charred spoon and syringes, and various prescription medications.
Police claim that one of the three individuals currently in custody had Hoffman’s phone number, indicating that they may have supplied him with drugs. Officials, however, were not authorized to identify which one of the suspects had the number. Crucial details of the investigation remain shrouded in mystery.
The criminal investigation appears to lack a clear legal purpose. Even if police do identify and arrest the individual who sold Hoffman his fatal dose, they are not likely to pursue homicide charges. Under New York state law, drug dealers cannot be held liable for their customers’ deaths — even if their customers are famous, Oscar-winning movie stars. As the AP story explains:
“A 1972 state appellate division case found a dealer can’t be found guilty of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide for selling heroin and syringes to a customer who later dies because, the court ruled, legislation enhancing punishment for drug crimes didn’t redefine homicide to include the sale of an illicit drug that results in death.”
Nor is capturing Hoffman’s dealer likely to slow down the brisk drug trade in New York City. It probably won’t even make a dent in the business. For years on end we have seen proof that the tactics used in the War on Drugs do not significantly reduce drug trafficking and drug use in American cities. Arrest one dealer — or even a whole gang of them — and someone else will step in to take their place. In fact, a police crackdown is a sure way to drive prices up. The War on Drugs has arguably only succeeded in making the drug trade even more lucrative over time.
Many people here in the U.S. and abroad are increasingly dissatisfied with the criminalization of what is best viewed as a public health problem. If addiction is a disease, as all the specialists tell us, then why are we trying to fight it with law enforcement? When a famous person such as Philip Seymour Hoffman dies of an apparent drug overdose, why do the police obsessively look for someone to throw in jail? What will this accomplish? Do the police expect us to believe this is a reasonable response to a fatal overdose? Do public officials think this is a sound solution to the general problem of addiction? Do they think this makes them look good in the eyes of the public?
Many of us think the War on Drugs is part of the problem, not the solution. The actor and comedian Russell Brand, who is a recovering addict himself with ten years of hard-won sobriety under his belt, summarizes the views shared by a growing number of citizens in a recent article for the Guardian. Brand’s comments in response to Hoffman’s death deserve serious consideration:
“Addiction is a mental illness around which there is a great deal of confusion, which is hugely exacerbated by the laws that criminalize drug addicts.
“If drugs are illegal people who use drugs are criminals. We have set our moral compass on this erroneous premise, and we have strayed so far off course that the landscape we now inhabit provides us with no solutions and greatly increases the problem.
“This is an important moment in history; we know that prohibition does not work. We know that the people who devise drug laws are out of touch and have no idea how to reach a solution. Do they even have the inclination? The fact is their methods are so gallingly ineffective that it is difficult not to deduce that they are deliberately creating the worst imaginable circumstances to maximise the harm caused by substance misuse.
“People are going to use drugs; no self-respecting drug addict is even remotely deterred by prohibition. What prohibition achieves is an unregulated, criminal-controlled, sprawling, global mob-economy, where drug users, their families and society at large are all exposed to the worst conceivable version of this regrettably unavoidable problem.”
Brand overstates the case when he claims that Hoffman is a “victim” of our stupid drug laws. Likewise, his statement that the actor’s death was “inevitable” due to our drug laws is overblown. Let’s face it: no matter what laws are on the books, certain addicts are going to overdose and die in lonely hotel rooms and apartments. Addiction is heavy; some of us don’t make it. And Hoffman, as a successful and wealthy actor, had far more resources at his disposal than many who battle addiction. In his case, the laws did not matter all that much. He was far less likely to end up a victim of street violence, or wind up homeless or in prison because of his illness.
Yet Brand’s main point that the criminalization of addiction is pointless and counterproductive to society at large — and even downright harmful to many of us — is a clear-headed indictment of a disastrous social policy. We can see the futility of this policy on full display in the ongoing criminal investigation into Hoffman’s death, which will do nothing to help other addicts survive or stop them from using drugs.
The fact that the Hoffman investigation in New York appears to be little more than a publicity stunt, with no logical or worthwhile goal in sight, only serves to underscore the main thrust of Brand’s argument.
Meanwhile, as the cops round up drug dealers, we still do not know the results of Hoffman’s autopsy. The precise cause of his death is yet to be determined. When officials stated soon after the actor was discovered that he died with a syringe in his arm, we felt safe in assuming that he died of an overdose. To be clear, however, we must stress that we are still awaiting official confirmation of this fact. We don’t even have a timetable for the autopsy to be finished. A spokesperson for the medical examiner’s office, Julie Bolcer, has declined requests to discuss any pending toxicology tests.
Those of us who admire Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work as an actor find it hard to believe that he was found dead on the floor with a needle in his arm. Those of us who have experience with addiction, however, know that this is an all-too common tragic outcome — no matter how talented or intelligent or sensitive one might be.
We also know that tough laws and criminal investigations are not the solution. Treating Hoffman’s death as a crime will not help anyone. It will only make a very troubling situation even worse.
UPDATE: Two of the suspects arrested during the investigation of Hoffman’s death have been released from jail. On Thursday, February 6, Juliana Luchkiw was released on her own recognizance, and Max Rosenblum was released on a $35,000 bail bond.