john5746 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Amy Winehouse They’re tryin to make me go to rehab I said no, no <cough wheeze, croak> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Are we discussing stupidity, use of crack, singers, fathers of singers, stubbornness, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 The ironic choice of lyrics of one of her songs, Phi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Slightly off-topic, although this would concern Miss Winehouse, is that in the UK, they're thinking of new powers of arrest against celebrities who have photographic evidence of them indulging in illicit substances. Not entirely sure how that'll work, as surely said celebrity could just claim it was artificial sweetener up their nose...sounds daft, I know. I think people are generally miffed that celebrities can be caught (on camera) blatantly in the act, and getting away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Slightly off-topic, although this would concern Miss Winehouse, is that in the UK, they're thinking of new powers of arrest against celebrities who have photographic evidence of them indulging in illicit substances. Not entirely sure how that'll work, as surely said celebrity could just claim it was artificial sweetener up their nose...sounds daft, I know. I think people are generally miffed that celebrities can be caught (on camera) blatantly in the act, and getting away with it. Yea - there was a big debate about it on the radio the other day. I don't see how it could be enforced for the reasons you stated - it could be a fake photo, they could have been pretending with flour etc.. If you got a human witness to say "yep! I was there and she was doing it for sure your honour" then I think that might back up the evidence produced in a photo - but I hope they don't adjust the law so that pictures alone are enough to convict. Even though what they are doing is wrong, I believe it would be a massive loss of freedom and civil liberty. I think so anyway...even though my politics are quite right wing (well -fairly right of centre - I'm no fascist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yea - there was a big debate about it on the radio the other day. I don't see how it could be enforced for the reasons you stated - it could be a fake photo, they could have been pretending with flour etc.. If you got a human witness to say "yep! I was there and she was doing it for sure your honour" then I think that might back up the evidence produced in a photo - but I hope they don't adjust the law so that pictures alone are enough to convict. Even though what they are doing is wrong, I believe it would be a massive loss of freedom and civil liberty. I think so anyway...even though my politics are quite right wing (well -fairly right of centre - I'm no fascist). They should stick with 'caught with possession' and leave it at that, although I do think the drug laws need a massive overhaul i.e they're rubbish, but that's a different debate, and would be veering even further off topic. Trying to enforce this particular tactic, is just going to fail, and obviously it would have to apply to the public as well. Personally I couldn't care less what a celebrity gets up to in a pub toilet, people that concern themselves with such affairs, really need to get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Personally I couldn't care less what a celebrity gets up to in a pub toilet, people that concern themselves with such affairs, really need to get a life. Exactly - in fact Amy W is a great advert for the anti drug campain I reckon. "Take drugs and be like the celebs..... DEAD"! Let them get on with it - I think young people will soon think "sod that" to taking drugs when these morons start dropping dead or coughing their guts/lungs up on stage. Think of the reduction in cost to the NHS if you were to just let the Heroin addicts contine thier habbit. Instead of all of this expensive methadone, policing and hospital care there would be just be one funeral to pay for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Blair Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Let them get on with it - I think young people will soon think "sod that" to taking drugs when these morons start dropping dead or coughing their guts/lungs up on stage. Yeah, because drug use practically stopped after Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison et al died. Or maybe not. People take drugs for a variety of reasons, have since before we started writing down our history, and always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I'm suprised that anyone cares. I'm more upset about the death of George Carlin right now. There was someone in the entertainment industry that really shook things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Emphysema at 24? That's a lot of crack smokin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 " I think young people will soon think "sod that" to taking drugs when these morons start dropping dead or coughing their guts/lungs up on stage." Yeah! just like they always have. Seriously, I predict an outbreak of photoshopped pictures of Bush and others with huge spliffs. Current politicians off their heads on drugs is a potential problem. Entertainers- pah! who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yeah, because drug use practically stopped after Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison et al died. Or maybe not. People take drugs for a variety of reasons, have since before we started writing down our history, and always will. As I said - let's let natural Selection take it's cause then. Let them do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. With all the hype and media attention it glamourises it further. Just put a quick ulogy in the local paper "whinehouse dead on OD" and say no more about it. BUT people will go on and on and sensationalise it all so that kids will attracted to the hype, get interested and start to sympathise and copy. Anyway - who cares! Shame to hear that a much liked guy has gone. I didn't know who George Carlin was, but from the things I've just read he was cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Blair Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I'm more upset about the death of George Carlin right now. There was someone in the entertainment industry that really shook things up. He did his fair share of drugs too, not to mention some pretty blatant promotion of them. His humour was smarter than Cheech and Chong's, but "Toledo Window Box" really isn't that different from the Yellow Album. As I said - let's let natural Selection take it's cause then. Let them do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. With all the hype and media attention it glamourises it further. Just put a quick ulogy in the local paper "whinehouse dead on OD" and say no more about it. BUT people will go on and on and sensationalise it all so that kids will attracted to the hype, get interested and start to sympathise and copy. Anyway - who cares! I dunno. Does Miles Davis write Witches Brew without heroin? Does Hendrix do Purple Haze without acid? I've got the Grateful Dead playing right now, does that happen without drugs? What about some of Dylan's best imagery, or what The Band created? Do we get the Ancient Mariner, Alice in Wonderland, or most of Byron without drugs? What about Frankenstein? Is a world without Hunter Thompson or Jack Kerouac a good one? I'm not defending Winehouse's use of crack, I honestly don't see how that particular drug could enhance her creativity, but to deny that drug use has played a pretty large part in the arts...not just music...is to deny the evidence. Listen to Waylon Jennings back in his wild days, then some of his later schlock. Which do you turn up and which do you turn off? I don't think we can judge these people to be good or bad because of what they ingested, but to question that ingestion is to do just that. It's their choice, for their reasons, and it works for them for at least a short time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yea - there was a big debate about it on the radio the other day. I don't see how it could be enforced for the reasons you stated - it could be a fake photo, they could have been pretending with flour etc.. If you got a human witness to say "yep! I was there and she was doing it for sure your honour" then I think that might back up the evidence produced in a photo - but I hope they don't adjust the law so that pictures alone are enough to convict. Even though what they are doing is wrong, I believe it would be a massive loss of freedom and civil liberty. I think so anyway...even though my politics are quite right wing (well -fairly right of centre - I'm no fascist). Is it really that complicated? The photographic evidence is probable cause, then they take a drug test to make sure it was not a fake picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) Exactly - in fact Amy W is a great advert for the anti drug campain I reckon. "Take drugs and be like the celebs..... DEAD"! Umm, what I meant was, people that take interest in the activities of celebrities, should get a life. Famous rich person takes drugs...hold the front page. EDIT: Well I guess the Queen is rich and famous, which would hold newsworthiness. Edited June 23, 2008 by Snail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 So am I the only fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 So am I the only fan? I actually think she's alright! I dunno. Does Miles Davis write Witches Brew without heroin? Does Hendrix do Purple Haze without acid? I don't think we can judge these people to be good or bad because of what they ingested, but to question that ingestion is to do just that. It's their choice, for their reasons, and it works for them for at least a short time. I never said I was Judging them either way - I just said we should just let them get on with it without wasting important police resorces etc.. Oh and I love Miles Davis, Jimmy Hendrix, the beatles andloads of others who were obviously under the influence. ( I was about to play advocate and say who knows what they could have acheived without the negative impact of drug taking on their lives... but who am I kidding eh? ) I just think they could be abit more responsible and low key about their drug taking - some give it a bad name. Is it really that complicated? The photographic evidence is probable cause, then they take a drug test to make sure it was not a fake picture. But if the photo was from weeks ago and the drug is untraceable - they were talking about convictions on photographic evidence alone - No Way!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Is it really that complicated? The photographic evidence is probable cause, then they take a drug test to make sure it was not a fake picture. Then you have to accept this as evidence that Bush is a chimp: I can provide a few audio clips to support that picture is not fake if you need me to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I don't think we can judge these people to be good or bad because of what they ingested, but to question that ingestion is to do just that. It's their choice, for their reasons, and it works for them for at least a short time. I agree that drugs has always and will always play a role in art... I'm just saying that we should expect this, since it's always happened. Drugs have ended the lives of some truly great artists (and sorry, but I don't consider Amy Winehouse among them. I had actually never heard of her before this news report, seeing her name on the BBS news feed, of all places.) My point is, most of these artists haven't really changed the world, and I don't get why we make such a big deal about them. I suppose there are a few rare gems that deserve the recognition they get when they die (lennon, etc) but most of them make ok music at best and then what... expect us to treat them as special after they've ruined their minds and bodies? I say who gives a damn about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 It's not so much that I "give a damn about" her (but I'm not gloating either). I do think it's disappointing, because she is an extremely rare talent, and her career is probably over, quite soon after it began. She doesn't get special treatment, but it is a particular shame as far as I'm concerned. At least a lot more of a shame to me than most of the other people I've never met who destroy themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 yeah sorry, I tend to get frustrated when celebrates dominate the news... especially ones I've never heard of, or don't find particularly useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 You're not the only fan, Sisyphus. She is very talented, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 yeah sorry, I tend to get frustrated when celebrates dominate the news... especially ones I've never heard of, or don't find particularly useful. Almost none of the celebrities are particularly useful. I get really annoyed when my grandma speaks about shows based on who is starring in them as opposed to the title or the plot. What's the big deal about the celebrities anyhow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Almost none of the celebrities are particularly useful. I get really annoyed when my grandma speaks about shows based on who is starring in them as opposed to the title or the plot. What's the big deal about the celebrities anyhow? says the man with the celebrity/scientist as an avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now