Amy Winehouse is dead -- report

[Azazello1313]

999 times out of 1000, you show me someone dependent on alcohol/drugs, I'll show you someone who is experiencing intense and overwhelming emotional pain. Ask yourself this--how many happy addicts have you really met? Unfortunately, the individual comes to rely on alcohol/drugs to self-medicate their emotional pain. The individual typically has very poor coping strategies and deficient defenses and s/he simply has to escape that emotional pain. I can only imagine how severe that pain must be as I see individuals on a regular basis who have given up families, jobs, housing and freedom in an attempt to medicate their emotional pain. Some, sadly, go too far and die. I'm certainly not excusing their behavior but I am explaining it. The callous nature of some of you demonstrates a profound ignorance. At least I hope it's only ignorance and not simply stupidity.

 

agree, but often there is a chicken-egg question...how often is much of that pain brought on by the addiction itself? many addicts start down that road simply because doing drugs is fun, and the downward spiral starts from there. doesn't contradict anything you said, I think it just underscores how deep the hole can get when one of the hallmarks of addiction is to keep digging the hole deeper.

 

only other thing I'd add is that I don't think it's purely coincidence that the relatively young and famous seem to be disproportionately affected by the perils of addiction.

[detlef]

I suppose my issue is this. Every time someone like this dies, we all seem to feel the need to get pissed because other, perhaps better, people died without the attention. It's almost implied that, if this passing saddens you, you don't care about, for instance, the people who died in Norway or some such. Which is silly. Maybe premature death just saddens you in nearly all forms.

 

Obviously, when a famous person dies, it's going to get more attention. If you don't care about Winehouse, then you're free to ignore the passing and make a point of celebrating the lives of those who you feel were "more important" or somehow more deserving of your mourning. That's cool. I just don't get the need to make a point of basically pissing on someone's grave my publicly stating that they shouldn't be mourned.

 

I fear that I've done that in the past and now realize that there's really nothing good about doing that. It's essentially mean spirited and does nothing to honor those who may better deserve our attention (assuming that's even the case).

 

I would think a better way to handle this is just to make sure to actually honor the deaths of those others, without weaving in the agenda of intentionally trashing someone else.

 

And, for the record, I wasn't a huge fan will not be lighting a candle. So, I'm not personally offended because I held her in some high regard.

 

None the less, I do have friends who are scientist who study chemical addiction and they've been making a point of talking a lot about how real a disease addiction is and it's biological roots. That, in many cases, it's not just about someone "sacking-up" and deciding to quit. That it's more than that. I'm not going to speak more or defend that point any further because it is not my research, just passing that along. I would say, however, that I'll take their word for it over someone who has no specific reason to be speaking from a learned position on it.

[Azazello1313]

this was well more of an issue when she gave people fighting help an anthem for their position.

 

that is a good point.

[untateve]

Are we really getting in an argument about a moderately talented, drug abuser who unceremoniously ended her life to soon? Yeah, it's sad that human life was lost, but this crap happens everyday with a lot less fanfare. If only you guys could be this bummed out about the crack whore on MLK and 16th who ended her life in the same manner last night. My guess is though that you guys wouldn't be nearly as concerned about the tragedy that befell her. Afterall, she isn't some media princess carrying out her struggle with her demons on some stage while millions of people gawk at her.

 

 

I would estimate I come across people who have fd their lives up because of alcohol/drugs several times per month. I usually meet with them in jail or while they are out on bond.

 

And I certainly agree that people are responsible for their choices and the consequences of their choices. However, it is a certainty that most individuals who become dependent on alcohol/drugs are attempting to cope with serious emotional pain/trauma. It is surrealistic at times when some of the biggest, strongest, hardened drug abusers are sobbing in front of me as I explore these underlying emotional issues. What makes it more interesting is I'm not even probing that deeply--I'm only conducting evaluations, not therapy. I strive not to delve deeply for that reason. Yet without their medication (alcohol/drugs) they are overwhelmed by their emotional pain.

 

Perhaps they are stupid for not obtaining mental health treatment, However, the vast majority of people I see have no insurance, no benefits, no medicaid--nothing. They can't get treatment and many don't even know how to go about attempting to get it.

 

So, yes, I stand by my statements. Those who feel that winehouse deserved what she got or deserves no compassion--you are either ignorant or stupid. However, you may be right--she very well might have wanted to die.

[Ursa Majoris]

some idummy that thinks they need drugs to produce better music.

Pretty sure I've read a quote from someone famous that art and drugs are inextricably linked. A case can be made that some great art (and not just music) would not exist without drugs.

[detlef]

Pretty sure I've read a quote from someone famous that art and drugs are inextricably linked. A case can be made that some great art (and not just music) would not exist without drugs.

Sly Stone attributed skipping the "1" in funk to cocaine's effect on the brain. I read that somewhere.

 

That said, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who claims that she did anything to actually increase drug use or even promoted it. As long as I can remember hearing about her, I was hearing about what a train wreck she was. In other words, she's been a cautionary tale about what messed up things can happen to you if you do drugs. Anyone who saw her as someone who was "doing just fine" despite drugs was so far out there that I'm sure we could point to any number of other issues in their life that caused such a warped view of the world. Because nobody remotely sane would draw that conclusion.

 

I'm sure they exist. Those who are truly "bad examples". Those who make drug use look harmless because, for whatever reason, they can manage to do just fine despite using hard drugs a lot. I could see how others who lack whatever it is that allows these people to essentially be functioning hard drug users could figure it's no big deal and go too far down that path. I know of people who've managed to maintain an essentially "healthy" relationship with what many consider "heavy" drugs, but these people did not use them at all frequently. So, I'm not sure if they qualify because they did not use so much as to be truly associated with the drugs.

 

Regardless, Winehouse was certainly not one of these people. She's been a mess for years, canceling shows, getting in trouble with the law. Essentially a posterchild for everything that is bad about drugs. None the less, I've seen it here and on Facebook enough. People almost glad that a veritable "Pied Piper" for drug use is now gone and can no longer glorify drug use. Which is beyond stupid if you've been paying any attention at all.

[Azazello1313]

Pretty sure I've read a quote from someone famous that art and drugs are inextricably linked. A case can be made that some great art (and not just music) would not exist without drugs.

 

that is something that is often blithely asserted, and a lot of people seem to genuinely believe it. the modern jazz cats in the 1950s REALLY believed it, thanks mostly to charlie parker. the evidence, however, seems to indicate the opposite, that a lot of great art exists despite drugs rather than because of them. all you need to do is to look at anyone who was a junkie and then got clean, did their music/art get better or worse? look at john coltrane for example. he was a junkie in the mid 50s, at which point he was an interesting saxophonist and somewhat sought-after sideman. then he got clean in 1957, and over the next 10 years basically became the greatest and most influential saxophonist who ever lived. there are many similar examples.

[detlef]

that is something that is often blithely asserted, and a lot of people seem to genuinely believe it. the modern jazz cats in the 1950s REALLY believed it, thanks mostly to charlie parker. the evidence, however, seems to indicate the opposite, that a lot of great art exists despite drugs rather than because of them. all you need to do is to look at anyone who was a junkie and then got clean, did their music/art get better or worse? look at john coltrane for example. he was a junkie in the mid 50s, at which point he was an interesting saxophonist and somewhat sought-after sideman. then he got clean in 1957, and over the next 10 years basically became the greatest and most influential saxophonist who ever lived. there are many similar examples.

And Aerosmith is certainly not among them. None the less, I don't doubt your overall point, just figured I'd take a gratuitous shot at the absolute dreck that band has put out for some time now which has coincided with Tyler not on the verge of killing himself.

[Azazello1313]

And Aerosmith is certainly not among them. None the less, I don't doubt your overall point, just figured I'd take a gratuitous shot at the absolute dreck that band has put out for some time now which has coincided with Tyler not on the verge of killing himself.

 

well when you're talking about crappy pop acts that sucked to begin with, no, getting clean doesn't suddenly turn them into great artists. it just initiates a shift in priorities from "getting wasted" toward "making a lot of money".

[Clubfoothead]

It's too bad when anyone dies as a result of not being able to deal with an addiction to something. It's not easy.

[The Irish Doggy]

** Hugs Huddle friends. **

[detlef]

well when you're talking about crappy pop acts that sucked to begin with, no, getting clean doesn't suddenly turn them into great artists. it just initiates a shift in priorities from "getting wasted" toward "making a lot of money".

I certainly don't rank Aerosmith among the greatest but do think their early stuff was pretty cool. Pop? Absolutely, but well written and certainly fun. The only redeeming quality of anything they've done over the last 20 years was their inclination to use Alicia Silverstone in their videos.

[theprofessor]

None the less, I do have friends who are scientist who study chemical addiction and they've been making a point of talking a lot about how real a disease addiction is and it's biological roots. That, in many cases, it's not just about someone "sacking-up" and deciding to quit. That it's more than that. I'm not going to speak more or defend that point any further because it is not my research, just passing that along. I would say, however, that I'll take their word for it over someone who has no specific reason to be speaking from a learned position on it.

 

Their right. Uneducated people think it's just a matter of walking away from the drugs if you want to change your life. With most, it's more complicated than that. I have spent over $70,000 in tratment centers and probably another 7-8 grand in individual counseling and therapy to help my children beat addiction and to this day it's still a struggle for both of them. My daughter is a drug and alcohol counselor but she still struggles with the desire to use and my son has developed some mental disorders because of his repeated and heavy Josh Gordon use. To go through this with your own children is gut wrenching.

[detlef]

Their right. Uneducated people think it's just a matter of walking away from the drugs if you want to change your life. With most, it's more complicated than that. I have spent over $70,000 in tratment centers and probably another 7-8 grand in individual counseling and therapy to help my children beat addiction and to this day it's still a struggle for both of them. My daughter is a drug and alcohol counselor but she still struggles with the desire to use and my son has developed some mental disorders because of his repeated and heavy Josh Gordon use. To go through this with your own children is gut wrenching.

While I've never had to deal with anyone really close to me going through something like this. It is the lack of regard that people seem to have for those who have, like you for instance, that really pisses me off.

 

Glad to hear that it appears the stories close to you will end differently than Winehouse's did, but I'm sure it must sting a bit to hear people so quick with the "Eff her, just another useless druggie" calls. Like these people don't have families who wanted to make their lives better. Like these families don't have some fond memories of them and now know that they have officially lost the battle.

 

Further, the implication that some of the fault must lie at the feet of those around her because, obviously, they didn't care enough to get her the help she needed. Another statement that reeks of stupidity and callousness.

[Ursa Majoris]

that is something that is often blithely asserted, and a lot of people seem to genuinely believe it. the modern jazz cats in the 1950s REALLY believed it, thanks mostly to charlie parker. the evidence, however, seems to indicate the opposite, that a lot of great art exists despite drugs rather than because of them. all you need to do is to look at anyone who was a junkie and then got clean, did their music/art get better or worse? look at john coltrane for example. he was a junkie in the mid 50s, at which point he was an interesting saxophonist and somewhat sought-after sideman. then he got clean in 1957, and over the next 10 years basically became the greatest and most influential saxophonist who ever lived. there are many similar examples.

I wonder if the drugs gave the inspiration and being clean gave the ability to build on the inspiration? I'm not advocating for drugs as a necessary ingredient, just saying that it's possible that some art may never have happened without them.

 

On a related note since it's often connected to drugs, emotional torment seems to be an ingredient of some great art / artists too. Van Gogh leaps to mind, along with some classical composers.

[darin3]

Their right. Uneducated people think it's just a matter of walking away from the drugs if you want to change your life. With most, it's more complicated than that. I have spent over $70,000 in tratment centers and probably another 7-8 grand in individual counseling and therapy to help my children beat addiction and to this day it's still a struggle for both of them. My daughter is a drug and alcohol counselor but she still struggles with the desire to use and my son has developed some mental disorders because of his repeated and heavy Josh Gordon use. To go through this with your own children is gut wrenching.

 

Just messin' with ya, prof. Sorry to hear what your family's been through but I'm sure they appreciate what you've done. Addiction is truly a cruel beeyotch.