In lieu of feeling bad and somewhat outraged about Philip Seymour Hoffman's lost fight against heroin, Russell Brand wrote a piece in the "Comment is free" section of The Guardian criticizing the modern day inaction and ignorance of lawmakers in tackling the drug problem at hand.
In the article, Brand questions if Hoffman would have died if such a heavy stigma on illegal drugs did not exist, or was atleast more tolerant, or if we, as people, didn't think drug addicts deserve to suffer because drugs are illegal and therefore those who are addicted are "criminals."
"If we insisted as a society that what is required for people who suffer from this condition is an environment of support, tolerance and understanding" than Hoffman's death may not have happened, according to Brand.
If it were Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber, Brand states in the column, their overdose death would have been anticipated already due to the amount of attention surrounding them because of the drug use.
According to Brand, Hoffman's death is a reminder not every drug addict is poor, bad or just a rich self-indulgent kid.
"The disease of addiction recognises" no distinctions, Brand wrote in the article, adding the that the "mourn-ography posing as analysis" will yield no ta-dah moment where an issue Hoffman's domestic life or his sex life, but just a man who was a "drug addict" with an "inevitable" death.
"In spite of his life seeming superficially great, in spite of all the praise and accolades, in spite of all the loving friends and family, there is a predominant voice in the mind of an addict that supersedes all reason and that voice wants you dead," Brand wrote. "This voice is the unrelenting echo of an unfulfillable void."
Hoffman's death is "an important moment in history," Brand states in the article. "Addiction is a mental illness around which there is a great deal of confusion, which is hugely exacerbated by the laws that criminalise drug addicts."
In the column, Brand says he understands Hoffman's fight, because he is also a drug addict in recovery.
"The reason I am so non-judgmental of Hoffman or Bieber and so condemnatory of the pop cultural tinsel that adorns the reporting around them is that I am a drug addict in recovery, so like any drug addict I know exactly how Hoffman felt when he 'went back out,'" Brand wrote in The Guardian.
"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?" Brand asks, stating lawmakers are so "ineffective" its seems "they are deliberately creating the worst imaginable circumstances to maximise the harm caused by substance misuse."
According to Brand, "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 wrote in The Guardian.
Brand then cites countries like Portugal and Switzerland, whose tolerant drug laws have helped lower crime and drug-related deaths by a significant amount."
"We know this system doesn't work - and yet we prop it up with ignorance and indifference. why are we not acting? Tradition? Prejudice? Extreme stupidity?" Brand questions. "The answer is all three."
"The troubling message behind Philip Seymour Hoffman's death, which we all feel without articulating, is that it was unnecessary and we know that something could be done. We also know what that something is and yet, for some traditional, prejudicial, stupid reason we don't do it," Brand states in The Guardian article.
