There are just so many celebrities dropping like flies nowadays. Michael Jackson...Gary Coleman...Amy Winehouse. It seems like a lot of celebrities have suffered something due to fame, or from even deeper causes such as something from childhood or bad influences. I don't think Amy Winehouse was a bad person for doing drugs. She was just making the wrong choices, and while she may have tried to save herself, the consequences of her actions might have taken it's toll on her. I'd be surprised too if her cause of death was from other causes, such as stress, depression, or something going wrong with her body. She wasn't perfect, but she wasn't bad either. Just troubled.

There are far more non-celebrities dropping like flies. Three deaths in two years isn't a bad rate for any population.

It is so often the case that really talented people seem to have self-destructive tendencies. Look at John Lennon. No, he didn't kill himself, but he spent way too much time trying to do the job with drugs and alcohol.

I think given his tremendous output it's kind of hard to fault him for his personal habits. I'm not sure how much more successful Lennon could possibly be.

True. But think of how much of his very short life he spent fighting addictions. He hid it well, better than most, certainly. And it didn't kill him, but he suffered. Really, the art world is rife with examples of people whose lives and creativity were impacted by drugs and alcohol. Some die too early, like the 27 club Winehouse has joined. Some fight tough battles and lose. But my point was that it seems to me that along with a great gift like music, there often comes a great trouble like bipolar disease or addictions.

Not existing anymore is a pretty unpleasant thing. Why else do we have after life theories?

Thunderstorms are dangerous too, as is driving and riding in automobiles.

Touche', but to be fair we protect ourselves from thunderstorms by not standing by trees, and in cars by using seat belts and driving the speed limit. There is a difference between taking normal everyday risks and engaging in risky behavior. If you walk on the railroad tracks, you probably will eventually be hit by a train. If you continually use drugs and alcohol, there is and increased risk of dying from such.

Statistically you're probably still safer by living in the suburbs and not driving than the increase in most people abusing drugs and alcohol. This isn't to diminish the impact those sorts of things sometimes have, but to simplify things by equating drug use with some unerring path to ruin. All sorts of things in life are paths to ruin.

Last edited by Mistermook : 7th Sep 2011 at 06:41 PM.

Perhaps my bias is caused by the years I spent working in prisons and rehab centers. Funny thing, no one ever intended to need either one. But the lifestyle they chose had consequences. No one intends to become a crackhead or a wino, but their choices, back when they could make them, led them to their fates. I'm not saying everyone who uses will become addicted; I'm saying you won't become addicted if you stay away to begin with. I've been to a lot of job fairs, but I never once saw the crackhead booth. No one wants it; but it happens.

Prisons are there to create prisoners. You only see the ones with problems, even if the problems go beyond the drugs. Plus there's the whole "drugs are criminal" aspect, which pushes drugs and criminals together in the first place.

A disproportionate amount of black people are in prisons, based on the sort of bias you're talking about black people should just be more white. Or rather, more precisely on the point, confirmation bias is tricky, especially in considering criminals and abuse. You can easily fall into chicken-egg loops that I don't regard as especially useful.

Was Winehouse engaged in activities with drugs because:
A. Artistic people naturally use drugs.
B. Rich people have access to drugs.
C. Drugs produce artistic prowess.
D. The expectations that all if the above are true.
E. Predisposition
F. Something else entirely.

I've heard all of those things pressed as hypothesis for all sorts of generalizations, but I think they're all unsatisfactory or at least fractionally relative to the point of uselessness for finger pointing. I understand the inclination toward simplification, but people are complicated and shoving a human being into a box most often means you're rounding off edges or else shaping the box to fit the person rather than producing a one size fits all box.

I have trouble stomaching the moralistic anti-drug comments too. People don't do drugs because they wake up and think "Gee, it's nice day to do some fracking crack". I've never met anyone I've suspected of doing drugs heavily for any reason other than coping with terrible experiences in life.

What do I think? I think she's dead and no amount of moralising about the evils of drugs will bring her back. I think the coroner has yet to confirm a cause of death, so blaming her drug habits is a bit premature. I think it's not necessarily a surprise that she died early given her unhealthy lifestyle, but it's still a tragedy. And I liked her music.

I also think I am sick to death of hearing the word "druggie" (among others) used to describe people who take drugs, as if someone who chooses to take drugs exists on another plane of existence from the rest of society, and has no morals. Alcohol is more damaging to your health and to the health of other people than a lot of illegal drugs, yet drinking is considered socially acceptable. Reports keep coming out that arresting people for taking soft drugs actually does more harm to their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families than letting them take the drugs would. I think what someone does with their own body should be considered their own damn business.