Through the fine line of semantics I am on team Billy here. Nobody dies from "a plane crash". They die from injuries sustained IN the plane crash. Nobody dies from electrocution. They die from the resulting cardiac arrest from getting all that voltage across their heart. Bopper didn't die from a plane crash. He died from injuries sustained in the crash. Fine semantic line, but true. Lynott had sepsis, otherwise known as blood poisoning, but cause of death was pneumonia and cardiac arrest. Did he contract it from dirty needles shooting heroin? Maybe, maybe not, but he didn't die directly from the heroin. So do people die from the contributing factors of the ultimate final event? Also playing into this is that he died in 1986, and to look back with almost 40 years more knowledge of medical science adds a layer of interest.

In the example of the plane crash, if a jet engine tosses a blade, which explodes an engine, which takes out the hydraulics making the plane unflyable and the plane ultimate hits a mountain, somebody somewhere will say cause of death was metal fatigue in the blade.

On topic, I know that with the addictive personality that I have, the lifestyle involved with large amounts of money to spend on vices, I would have been gone by 35. All I could afford was alcohol, and I did my best to kill myself with it until I woke up in 1993 and admitted I had a problem. There was that fine line between alcoholic and party animal. I don't know which side of that line I was on, but I do know that quitting was a very wise move. When you get up to drinking a case of beer every day a rotted liver can't be far behind.