The untimely death of Amy Winehouse has resurrected an old pub table argument of mine.
If an athlete/sports person is found to have used a 'banned substance' or 'performance enhancing drug' to obtain an accolade - they are demonised, outcast, stripped of their awards and shunned by fellow competitors.
If a singer / song writer is exposed as being fond of illegal mind altering substances they are seen as edgy, a tortured talent and living life at the limit. They will have hundreds of column inches dedicated to their addiction, they will have fellow artists pledging help and sympathy, judges will sentence them with courses of 'help' again and again, they will get 'shout-outs' from other award winners at awards ceremonies.
Two completely different ways of dealing with what I see as a similar issue.
Personally I would like to see a common rule applied across the board as to strip another element of hypocrisy away from our current society.
We could start with stripping any Beatle of all his gold discs and number one's where it could be proved that they wrote / performed using a recreational drug. All critically acclaimed Shane Magowan performances are to be removed from the archives if is proved that he was indeed of his tits at the time. There will be a full investigation of Bob Dylan's back catalogue. What about Lou Reed?
Discuss...
