With the limits that come of only seeing him a few times on the trail, I'd like to suggest that he clearly had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol and probably had some other demons.
With that said, he was also a kind soul and the conscience of the hiker community. He was unafraid to say something to people acting in a way that was detrimental to the community at large. He encouraged other hikers and shared freely of what he had be that knowledge or food.
Because of all of that, there was a certain amount of hero worship around him. He was a much loved character. But I get the sense that Baltimore Jack was a bit of a character, and assuming that role let him avoid some of the other things in his life that he might've lived longer had he addressed them.
If our lives are not our own to use or risk as we choose, then to whom do they actually belong?
(Of course there is toxoplasmosis, toxiplasma gondii (sp?), which causes risk taking and is a literal brain parasite ... perhaps we're due a repost of that one.)
It is entirely valid to choose to build one's own body and health, and thus it is entirely valid to choose to damage one's own body and health. Even in the case of addiction or disease - who can possibly be a higher authority on "should" than the person in question?
This tends to be untrue. Often when there are accidents pr tragedies, several people go to great lengths and risk their own lives in attempting to help.
I am largely pro the right to free solo, but the ability to claim "it just affects me" feels like a lie. Plus now I am reminded of a Dan le Sac song. Anyway.