Skip to main content

New information about a recent story has come to light today, and it bears reporting here  as other news items and "facts" about this case have been reported at length.

Today, more facts about the tragic death of journalist Michael Hastings became clear, and they suggest that any "foul play" involved may have instead been self-inflicted.

...journalist Michael Hastings had returned to drugs and had traces of amphetamine and marijuana in his system when he drove his car into a tree hours after he was seen passed out in his home, according to an autopsy report released Tuesday.
Of course, the next sentence in the AP story is also important
Coroner's investigators said the drugs likely did not contribute to the June crash, which they classified as an accident.
However as we read more we learn that there is a possibility that a cocktail of various drugs from those listed above, to Ritalin and the rather intense hallucinogen DMT may have been involved in the journalist's last days.

The AP story points out that DMT was not detected by the blood test. What they fail to mention is that DMT rarely is because they occur in our bodies naturally. Many drugs, such as DMT and HGH are virtually undetectable by the current methods of testing

making it almost impossible to determine an exact time DMT will show up on a drug test
Before anyone freaks out and tries to claim I am suggesting anything other than the facts of this case, I am not. Note that I am merely pointing out the news as it relates to the case and not positing any conclusions from these facts.

Furthermore I have actually experienced using DMT. I know firsthand that it is an intense drug, one of the most intense there is.  

I also relate to Hastings' attempts to remain sober as well as having spent almost as many years free from drugs and alcohol. Except for the fact that Hastings is several years my junior (and a much better writer), we are not that different at all.

This has been a subject of much discussion here at Dkos, some of which has veered toward outright CT. I am taking care to not let this post become one of those. With that said, I do think we all need to take a breath and digest the various facts that have been brought to light with this new collection of science and information shared by loved ones.

Family members told investigators that Hastings had been "sober" for 14 years but started to use drugs again over the past month.
This sad revelation could be a window into understanding just how something like this may have happened. It is not unlikely that some combination of these factors influenced the judgement of someone in the middle of the night. If fact, Occam's Razor should factor into the equation when it is known that accidents are by far the leading cause of death for American men his age.

Until more facts become clear, I think it is important to refrain from drawing any conclusions. In time there may be a smoking gun to prove that some of the myriad CTs have merit. But in the interest of showing respect for the dead and his family, I hope we all take greater care and show more respect before jumping to conclusions about the cause of any accidents or other tragedies in the future.

What we now know is that someone who for 14 years had tried to stay sober, for whatever reason, what not at the time of his death. It is the sad fact of life that so many of us who attempt to stay clean & sober do not continue to do so until the time of our death. Sadly, this fact is often the cause of it.

8:40 PM PT: Headline edit in the interest of fullest possible clarity for those who do not understand the many accepted uses of the word "sober".


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  furthermore (14+ / 0-)

    before anyone here thinks I am a Pollyanna or Nancy Reagan protege, I have been for many years an advocate for the full legalization of marijuana. Not at a distance either.

    I know from driving far too many times than I care to admit under the influence of pot and other substances that it can have an effect. Sleep deprivation is also a powerful drug. A combination of all of these factors would make any of us less capable behind the wheel.

    Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

    by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:32:52 PM PDT

    •  Couple of things you missed... (3+ / 0-)

      Amphetamine is in Adderal, not Ritalin.  I take adderal for legit medical reasons.  Adderal would be of little concern while driving, unless he was abusing tons of it at the time.  He had traces of it in his blood, so no one knows just how much.  He could have used some adderal a couple days before the crash and still have it detected.

      Second.  DMT is in NO WAY RESPONSIBLE for the crash.  Technically, I guess it's possible to fire up some DMT in the car, but no DMT user in their right mind would do such a thing.  DMT's effects last minutes, not hours or days, minutes.  3-15 minutes, with zero side effects nor after effects.  DMT had nothing to do with it.  Zip zero nada.

      Pot.  He had traces in his blood.  Ok, that means he smoked some weed within 30 days of driving.  No pipes, no roaches, no weed was found in the car.  I'm 99.999% sure weed had nothing to do with this accident.

      Using the terms "was not sober" and "a cocktail of drugs in his system" is sensationalism.  You don't know that.  A cocktail of drugs?  Come on.  He was like totally sober behind the wheel, and tested positive for drugs used that past weekend.

      I don't know what caused the crash, but lets not smear the guy with misinformation.

      "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

      by FoodChillinMFr on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:25:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  are you actually reading the links? (4+ / 0-)

        Because your reading of them is very, very far from what the coroner's report actually said.

        Take a breath and read up some more. It said "in the hours before his death". Go read that part.

        And maybe it is instead you who is making the types of jumps you choose to accuse me of making.

        Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

        by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:31:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm reading what you wrote. (0+ / 0-)

          And you said traces.

          Is that not what what was reported by the coroner?  I'll go read it before I comment further.

          "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

          by FoodChillinMFr on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:36:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok, I've read further. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joanneleon

            Coroner said likely marijuana use within hours of the crash.  His buddy said they smoked some weed the night before.  Makes sense.  Again, zero concern if that's indeed the case.

            The Ritalin thing came from 3 years prior when he was involved in a accident while testing positive.  Not relevant.

            Family members claim he was using DMT.  One does not "use" DMT like you do with most drugs of abuse.  It's a once in a while thing with a trip that lasts minutes, and then it's gone.  DMT didn't show up in any bloodwork, and again would be of zero consequence to the wreck.

            Amphetamines showed up, but those were probably not used at the time of the wreck.  If they were, the effects produced by amphetamines would cause wakefulness.  Abuse of amphetamines would cause something closer to mania, but even then I'd have little concern when compared to the effects of a few beers.  Coroner didn't say amphetamines were likely within hours of the wreck, only pot within hours (likely the night before).

            My take?  The drug use thing is being sensationalized.  These drugs had nothing to do with it.

            "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

            by FoodChillinMFr on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:59:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  your take is noted (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              second gen, BlueJessamine, erush1345, Sylv

              Your definitions of the words "zero", "effects", "concern", "consequence" and many more are anathema to the reading of the law and medical science of the day.

              Ask yourself if you would want someone driving your child around who meets all of the above descriptions.

              Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

              by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:08:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

                I take adderal on a daily basis, and used to indulge in marijuana.  

                Would I let someone drive my kid around who has •traces• of amphetamines and/or pot in his blood?  If I trusted the him/her and knew they were •sober• (as it appears Hastings was) then why wouldn't I allow my kids to be driven by him/her?

                A recreational drug user doesn't scare me as long as they are responsible and sober while driving.

                "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

                by FoodChillinMFr on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 01:07:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If he was high on pot, (0+ / 0-)

                  he would have been doing 35 mph.

                  What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

                  by dkmich on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 03:44:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  do you actually have children? (0+ / 0-)

                  I think most parents, as in over 95%, would not share your views.

                  Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

                  by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 09:27:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes. 2 beautiful kids and wife right next to me. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LaughingPlanet, BlueJessamine

                    That's a hard question to answer (and a bit loaded).  

                    Where would you draw the line?  Someone on prescribed Xanax for anxiety?  Someone taking prescribed painkillers regularly?  Someone with narcolepsy or ADHD taking a prescribed stimulant?  Someone who ingests or smokes cannabis for chronic pain from cancer?  

                    If the person is used to the drug and not abusing it, why couldn't they drive (assuming they drive safely and have a clean record).

                    Where would you draw the line?  Maybe I'm a little more trusting, but we've made it just fine so far.

                    "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

                    by FoodChillinMFr on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:47:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair enough (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlueJessamine, FoodChillinMFr

                      I try to be charitable with regards to recreational drugs. The war on drugs has made most Americans overly paranoid about those who use them.

                      I think the middle ground is the best place to be n the topic. "None" is absurd/untenable and happens to be the law for the most part.

                      "Some" is more dangerous than many drug users/abusers care to admit.

                      "Wasted" is a very serious issue and far too many people ruin innocent lives driving impaired.

                      I do feel that many prescription drugs should require not driving while using them. Xanax is a good example of one that can be abused/dangerous very easily.

                      Again, I am a long-time marijuana legalization activist.
                      Someone who ingests or smokes cannabis for chronic pain from cancer is a tricky one indeed. Even most vocal marijuana activists acknowledge driving stoned slows reaction time.

                      I am glad it is not my job to make the decisions raised by your comment.

                      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

                      by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 01:05:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  truly a park assist (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psnyder, BlueJessamine, greengemini
    DMT is the common name for the hallucinogenic drug N,N-dimethyltryptamine, otherwise known by its scientific name 3-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]indole. It is also the root chemical structure for a number of other natural and synthetic hallucinogenic tryptamines, including psilocin, psilocybin, and 5-MeO-DMT, as well as the root structure for other drugs and important chemicals, such as the anti-migraine drug sumatriptan.

    DMT is found naturally in the mammalian brain and is theorized to play an important role in thought processing, dreaming and near-death experiences, as well as meditation and out-of-body experiences such as astral-projection. When smoked or ingested in combination with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI), DMT induces an intense hallucinogenic and psychedelic state.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:34:45 PM PDT

  •  I thought there would be clear evidence (7+ / 0-)

    of intoxication.  Instead speculation.

    •  you seem to share (5+ / 0-)

      an opinion with some HuffPo comments

      The only conclusion regarding drugs here is that they had NOTHING to do with the accident.
      The fact say nothing of the sort.

      They are saying it is unlikely they contributed to the accident (meaning lower than 50%).

      One does not need to be over the limit on any drug or combination of drugs to have his judgement impaired.

      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

      by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:43:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I"m sorry -- is "unlikely" legally defined to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        mean less than 50% when used in a coroner's report?

        Or did you just make that up?

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:33:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  are you really (0+ / 0-)

          unclear on the definition of the word?

          Or are you merely being argumentative?

          Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

          by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:45:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hate to break it to you, but *you* are the (0+ / 0-)

            one who is unclear.

            In neither technical nor common usage does unlikely specifically mean, "With less than 0.5 likelihood". In common usage, 'unlikely' almost always implies a likelihood well short of 0.5. In technical usage, 'unlikely' means only that the likelihood is definitely less than 0.5, but it means no more than that. If the likelihood is 0.001, I can say with perfect correctness that the event in question is 'unlikely'. In doing so, I have not suggested that its likelihood is not far below 0.5.

            I rather doubt the ME was thinking very carefully about his choice of words. Without clarification we cannot know the original meaning. Nonetheless I would be surprised to learn that he believed the likelihood to be in dounble digit percentages.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:19:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you really (0+ / 0-)

              hate to break it?

              I would say it is unlikely you hated breaking anything.

              (Note: I think you broke nothing)

              Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

              by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:25:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh. (0+ / 0-)

                Did you actually read that page? Would it surprise you to know that I have read that page, and not just in the last ten minutes, either?

                I don't know what it is you think you know, based on whatever it is you do for fun or for employment -- hell, maybe you're a stats PhD -- but nothing on that page contradicts my argument, and as far as I can see, nothing on that page supports yours, though I did not, on this reading, parse every sentence.

                You are wrong, pure and simple, not because I say so, but because you aren't as smart and erudite as you think you are. Suck it up and let this one go. I conservatively estimate the likelihood that the ME's estimated likelihood of the drugs detected contributing to the accident was greater than .1, to be less than .1. Which gives me a nice little 0.01 bayesian prior, assuming the ME actually knows what he's talking about. My estimate is based on my extensive experience interpreting spoken and written english, together with my extensive experience working with likelihood-based analyses of complex data, cheerfully unconstrained by dogmatic scholasticism on the matter of jargon definition. Your implied suggestion that there is a fairly high likelihood that the ME's estimated likelihood was somewhere close to 0.5 is not supported by anything other than what appears to be your pedantic interpretation of statistical terminology as used in common english discourse. That is not how people talk.

                Rather than bother with a response to this, I recommend the following exercise: Consider the qualified expressions given below, and evaluate them. Rank them. Then decide where the cutoff lies, such that, had the ME employed a term below that cutoff, it would have nullified your original remark about "50%".

                Somewhat unlikely.
                Very unlikely.
                Quite unlikely.
                Rather unlikely.
                Extremely unlikely.
                Not likely.
                A bit unlikely.
                Not very likely.
                Not terribly likely.
                Pretty unlikely.
                Most unlikely.
                Most likely not.

                Then, when you've drawn that line, and contemplated the nature of the exercise for a bit, ask yourself this question: "Am I a doofus, or what?"

                To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                by UntimelyRippd on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 10:31:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  what are the odds (0+ / 0-)

                  that your comment does not violate the DBAD policy of Daily Kos?

                  Extremely unlikely.

                  You are still seriously asking what the word unlikely means?
                  Seriously?

                  Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

                  by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 11:44:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am not asking, seriously or otherwise, what the (0+ / 0-)

                    word "unlikely" means.

                    I am telling you that it does not "mean" what you think it means.

                    Now run along.

                    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                    by UntimelyRippd on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 06:30:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  haha (0+ / 0-)

                      You never give up.

                      I am not asking, seriously or otherwise, what the word "unlikely" means.

                      by UntimelyRippd on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 06:30:03 AM PDT

                      is "unlikely" legally defined to mean less than 50% when used in a coroner's report?

                      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:33:46 PM PDT

                      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

                      by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 09:29:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  haha! (0+ / 0-)

                        you can neither read nor write english, nor follow a line of reasoning.

                        haha!
                        hahahaha!

                        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                        by UntimelyRippd on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:15:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  it must suck (0+ / 0-)

                          to see your own words contradicting yourself so plainly.

                          Good luck with those ad hominems attempting to cover your Logic 101 Fallacy.

                          Your meltdown is oozing for all to forever witness.

                          Congrats!

                          Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

                          by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:37:48 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It would suck if it were true. (0+ / 0-)

                            But it isn't. Sadly, your inability to read English, or follow a fairly simply line of reasoning, or to relish the subtlety and nuance of well-used language, blinds you to this truth.

                            Good Lord, you're trolling your own diary.

                            But hey, I'm sure you're right, and there's a large crowd of gawkers watching me turn to ooze.

                            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                            by UntimelyRippd on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:44:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Don't know who this Hastings is but I'm sorry for (7+ / 0-)

    his passing and wish the best for his family.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:41:27 PM PDT

  •  Mr. Hastings death is a tragedy and (18+ / 0-)

    it is one of a zillion driving while impaired incidences but this one ended sadly.  I had, in the past, frequently driven while impaired -- no longer for the past decade plus.  

    Sometimes horrible things happen to otherwise good people and they aren't the work of the CIA, FBI, DEA or FSM.

    Blessings for his family and friends.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:42:28 PM PDT

  •  After seeing the extent of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner

    "accident" and the degree of combustion, I question any toxicology results. There couldn't have been much to test, if any.

    I have never seen a car so utterly burned.

    •  Dick van Dyke's car was pretty (5+ / 0-)

      well torched.

    •  The fact that you put the word accident in (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaughingPlanet, OIL GUY, vcmvo2

      quotes is telling.

      The fact that you obviously didn't read the autopsy is also telling. It specifies that there was still plenty of fluid to test. He wasn't burnt over his entire body. The report shows that his head/neck left side of his body was burned. The rest was pretty much fine. He had numerous broken bones.

      There is a video of his widow on Piers Morgan's show. She does not believe this was anything other than a tragic accident.

      I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

      by second gen on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually you can read the full autopsy, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, vcmvo2, Sylv

      including extensive description of which parts of his body were charred, etc.   They had more than enough fluid and tissue to test.

      That being said, I agree with most of the commenters that Hastings' use of drugs is being a bit overblown, and likely didn't contribute to the accident.  That his family was actively trying to get him into a detox program, though, might be indicative of where his mental state was at the time.  But I don't know, and it's not something to speculate about.  

      All evidence points to a high speed crash into a tree, and a life tragically cut short.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 10:42:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am very sorry (5+ / 0-)

    about his loss.  Condolences to his family and friends.  We needed him.  He will be missed.

    Thanks for this diary!

    Join us at Bookflurries-Bookchat on Wednesday nights 8:00 PM EST

    by cfk on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:48:02 PM PDT

  •  He crashed into a tree, right? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Addison, second gen

    Who does that who is stone cold sober? It is just as sad and tragic if he was a bit high on something. He pissed off the US Army pretty good (or was it the Marines) by his reporting of all the stuff they said to him. He got a senior general fired. So of course people will suspect foul play. I'm an Occam's Razor guy - the simpler explanation usually makes the most sense. And the simplest explanation is that this was a car accident.

  •  I find your diary confusing (0+ / 0-)

    You note that Hastings was not sober at the time of the accident , but the quotes say only that he had meth and marijuania  in his system, but not what amounts. Merely knowing he had them in his system tells us nothing about whether he was sober; marijuana can take  very long time to metabolize completely, for example. That is why the conclusion that the drugs didnt play a role is important: if he were abusing drugs, he could have had trace amounts in his system from days before, and which would not have impaired his driving. And the quotes don't mention that he had the other drugs you discussed at all-the DMT and Ritalin.  Did I miss something? And if tests cannot discover DMT, how did you learn he had taken it? I'll try to read more articles; maybe the info is in there and I just missed it.

    The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

    by CenPhx on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:00:09 PM PDT

    •  i can see (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Cedwyn

      how you are confused.

      In the interest of fair use I didn't quote much of the piece, erring on the side of caution. His family knew of, and disclosed, his use of DMT.

      As for the word "sober", it is often confused with the phrase "under the limit". For the sake of argument, it was used in this diary to refer to the fact that after many years abstaining from alcohol and drugs, Hastings had recently entered into what is commonly called "relapse", which is the antithesis of sobriety.

      Does that help?

      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

      by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:07:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I still think your headline is misleading. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        You have a word in common usage. "sober" And you know what 99% of the people will assume sober means in context with a car accident.

        You're being deliberately misleading.

        It's not like you don't have room to say he had traces of drugs in his system. You just chose not to. Fair use on this site is most often considered 2-3 paragraphs, not a single word, like trace.

        Confession time: When I'm not ranting about politics, I write romance novels

        by teresahill on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:17:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can agree to disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen

          about my intentions.

          If you do not care to understand the use of the word as it applies to someone just as the articles, and his family, do, that is your choice.

          "as his family was attempting to get [Hastings] to go to detox," the report stated.
          Maybe do some reading up on the word and its definitions before reposting your same objections again.

          Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

          by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:27:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When you have more than one person in a diary (0+ / 0-)

            with so few comments objecting to your wording in your headline,  you have a problem. Not me.

            If you wanted to be clear, all you had to say was that he'd relapsed. People understand relapsed quite clearly. I don't think you're trying to be clear. Which is the first rule of good writing -- clarity.

            Confession time: When I'm not ranting about politics, I write romance novels

            by teresahill on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:32:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  is "more than one" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              second gen, BlueJessamine

              a rule you just made up? I have had scores of people object to my diaries in the past, but that does not make them less wrong.

              I think it was nitpicking at best, however I edited the title for you.

              Are you happy? Do you have other objections or is my wordsmithing up to your satisfaction? Would you care to comment instead of the substance of the diary instead of merely a word in its headline now? If the 1st rule of good writing is clarity, the first rule of good commenting is  substance.

              You're being deliberately misleading.
              Your opinions on this post are puzzling at best, wildly accusatory and ridiculous at worst. More than one person agrees with me too.

              Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

              by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:00:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Ah. Well... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, JVolvo

        Yes, see my comment below about DMT-I now see why you mention it. But after reading your diary, I took you to be saying that Hastings ability to drive was impacted by DMT, amphetamine and marijuania, which I don't think is a fair reading of the article you linked.

        I think your larger point was about how the cause of the accident is and will remain unknown. I agree with that. Beyond that is just wild speculation.

        The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

        by CenPhx on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:34:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wild speculation (0+ / 0-)

          is indeed popular around here and has been ablaze beyond comprehension on this and other issues of late. Many comments in the diary fail to include all the words from sentences they quote if it helps their beliefs seem more true.

          Jumping to conclusions makes us all look silly or worse.

          Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

          by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:52:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, JVolvo

      Reading is fundmental! The article does indicate his family members said he had taken DMT in the days prior. I have no idea how long it takes to metabolize. It said they determined he smoked pot that night, but it didn't cause impairment during the crash. So now I see where your comment about Ritalin and DMT came from, but I'm still not clear why you can conclude that Hastings was not sober when the ME who does this kind of thing all the time concluded otherwise.

      The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

      by CenPhx on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:09:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We disagree (0+ / 0-)

        about what the medical examiner said.

        Does "his level of intoxication was not likely a factor" mean "it does not exist" to you?

        Please explain.

        Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

        by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:23:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I hope his death can be left alone and not used (6+ / 0-)

    ...to further any political narrative.It is clear whether or not intoxication played a role in the crash, that his family thought they needed to intervene to get him back on the wagon.

    It is just too bad that we had people taking apart cars in order to show that they could be hacked as well as other fantastical speculation after his death. Now that we have more information, the guy should be left to rest in peace.

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:00:30 PM PDT

  •  It is so tragic when a promising young person (4+ / 0-)

    Dies like this. I also just would like us all to consider how many of our friends died in similar circumstances. I have to admit that I can no longer name many of them that were my friends in college or earlier.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:25:53 PM PDT

    •  I would imagine (0+ / 0-)

      that those of us who lose a loved one would hope that others could learn from his mistakes.

      I met someone today who lost his brother to a heroin overdose. The services are Thursday.

      The intransigence of those of us inclined to abuse drugs and alcohol can be astonishing.

      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

      by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:42:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Misleading diary, to say the least (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, CTDemoFarmer

    Drugs may have been in his system, but did NOT contribute to the crash.  Could the coroner have made that any clearer?

    BTW as a recovering addict myself, 'sober' pertains to alcohol. 'Clean' refers to drugs.  If you're gonna cast stones, make sure you cast the proper ones.

    'snakes have a mortal fear of.........tile'

    by OneCharmingBastard on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

    •  You have a different take (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen

      on the term sobriety, and the facts stated by the coroner's report.

      You left out a fairly huge word in your comment above. I will fix that for you.

      but likely did not contribute to the crash
      As someone who claims to be in recovery, I am surprised by your take on what the word, and the actions of those who may be intoxicated, means.

      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

      by LaughingPlanet on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:40:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My brother was a drug addict and an alcoholic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaughingPlanet, Sylv

      he calls himself sober.

      The article states:

      Family members told investigators that Hastings had been "sober" for 14 years but started to use drugs again over the past month. He had moved a couple months ago from New York to California and continued his work as a writer for BuzzFeed.

      I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

      by second gen on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:26:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More important than the toxicology... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet, second gen, pico

    ...which could've been corrupted in either way by the nature of his body upon recovery, was that his family was flying in for an intervention in the very near future. That does not suggest things were going well.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:52:18 PM PDT

    •  Also telling: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaughingPlanet, Sylv
      A family member told investigators Hastings didn't have a history of suicide attempts but believed he was invincible and could jump off a balcony and be fine.

      I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

      by second gen on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:27:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For someone to make (0+ / 0-)

        statements like that, they really should go on the record. Anonymous quotes are always something to take with a grain of salt.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:35:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is on the record. The autopsy shows (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaughingPlanet, pico, Sylv, joanneleon

          this as a statement from a family member whose name is redacted in the autopsy. It's not an anonymous quote. It's a statement given to investigators and the media doesn't know what their name is.

          Top of page 3

          I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

          by second gen on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:53:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I have a very suspicious nature, especially (0+ / 0-)

    considering the stories he was responsible for. I wouldn't  jump to conclusions.

  •  Please let him not turn out to be like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet

    Gary Webb, who became depressed beyond despair - he actually took his own life. Regardless of what caused Hastings' death, it sounds as though he was despondent, perhaps for similar reasons to Webb - the utter disregard for journalistic truth, even by those "in the business."

    Perhaps that should be "especially by those in the business," at least, in Webb's case.

    In both cases, the loss is tragic, not only for loved ones of the deceased, but for all of us who want our press to report less truthiness and more truth.

    Why can't we have Medicare-for-all?

    by 1BQ on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 10:25:11 PM PDT

  •  And i wouldn't say he used drugs, i would say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

    he had drugs in his system. Afterall, did anyone see him use the drugs? I don't think even a coroner can say more than that.

  •  i think (some) kossacks would rather believe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet

    the government drove his car into a tree remotely. this won't convince them, but thank you for trying.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

    by terrypinder on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 05:16:04 AM PDT

  •  If you want to engage in speculation, (0+ / 0-)

    then speculate all the way.

    He had drugs in his system does not necessarily equate to 'he took them voluntarily'.

    Unless you have further evidence that actually show him taking the drugs, there's no evidence that shows whether they were self-administered or not.

    Disclaimer:  Apart from two diaries on DK, I've never heard of Manning, nor know of any reason I should know or care about him, apart from a sense that if there was any foul play involved, I'd prefer it come to light, just as in any other potential criminal enterprise.  But I haven't heard anything yet that seems to tie him into any major political scandal.

    •  Manning? Drugs taken involuntarily? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv

      Wow!

      I have no idea WTF you are talking about; none.

      There are a lot of deranged comments in this diary, but yours WINS!

      Did you actually just suggest the gov't puts the drugs in his body?

      Despite everything the family said about knowing details about his drug abuse?

      WOW.
      Just WOW.

      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

      by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 09:20:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was just throwing out the same sort of thing (0+ / 0-)

        you were in your diary.

        I think it's all nonsense, but if you're going to smear whoever this guy is (and did I get his name wrong?  That shows you just how much I actually care about this story.) with drug usage, and then throw in a one off line about it not actually having any link to whatever accident anyway, you might as well go whole hog on the CT.

      •  Ok, I did get his name wrong, 'Hastings'. (0+ / 0-)

        But I reiterate, I was just adding a comment I felt worthy of the diary.  I don't believe, nor care about it, really.

        •  do you spend a lot of time commenting (0+ / 0-)

          on things you do not care (or know a damn thing) about?

          Your CT about the drugs being put into his body is the most ridiculous comment I have read on Daily Kos this year.

          And this site is fucking FILLED with ridiculous shit these days.

          Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

          by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:15:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When I'm bored, I sometimes do. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't know if I would say that amounts to 'a lot of time'.

            But your diary seemed incredibly ridiculous to me, so I returned the favour in that comment.

            What, exactly, is the point in writing a whole diary about someone having drugs in their system, when you have a line right in the diary saying it was concluded that drugs had nothing to do with whatever accident the guy was killed in?

            If it had nothing to do with his death, then what is it apart from character assassination?

            •  read better (0+ / 0-)

              You fell into the convenient "Skipping words" trap some other poor readers have.

              Instead of continuing to show/prove your ignorance of the matter, I suggest reading the comments here, or maybe even a link or two before continuing. Good advice for you to consider in the future as well.

              Help me out, Abe.

              Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

              Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

              by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:41:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LP, I've generally been impressed with your (0+ / 0-)

                writings in the past. I'm neither impressed with your diary, nor your comments or responses to either myself or other commenters here today.  

                I am sorry that I let my annoyance at your insults from your first response onward goad me into responding with my own rather insulting evaluation of your 'story'.

                Your assumption that you have some higher truth based on syntax, rather than actual evidence, and your clinginess to your own definition of 'unlikely', and claim that the problem lies with your readers, rather than your own interpretation of the materials you read, would, I think, speak more to your own issues, than those who wasted their time reading the diary or responding to you.

                Feel free to hurl further insults, I won't be bothering to read them.

                •  Insults? Nope; none. (0+ / 0-)

                  But nice try at playing the poor me victim card.

                  You came into the diary spouting CT BS. Take your medicine like a man. That a handful of others also erroneously objected to this post does not validate your errors. I see 21 recommends on the diary currently. Your minority opinion is noted.

                  However, here are the words you have used to describe my posting about an AP news report.

                  nonsense
                  smear
                  ridiculous
                  character assassination
                  And most absurdly
                  CT
                  Coming from the dude who wrote this
                  Unless you have further evidence that actually show him taking the drugs, there's no evidence that shows whether they were self-administered or not.

                  by Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 05:28:32 AM PDT

                  The government put drugs in his body.
                  The very definition of CT for you.

                  (Had you bothered to read anything before posting that you would know there is voluminous evidence.)

                  But somewhat fair comment otherwise.

                  Your error was merely thinking something = nothing.

                  An important mistake to not make.

                  Oh, that and the whole CT thing.

                  I am sorry that I let my annoyance...
                  Non-apology apology accepted.

                  Time will tell if you have learned your lesson(s) and will try to make amends for your actions.

                  I, too, am sorry that I let you goad me into responding to you. Your initial comment deserved nothing more than HRs, but I am following protocol to not HR in my own diary. I should have ignored you. Will do so starting....NOW.

                  Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

                  by LaughingPlanet on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:22:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site