SBS 0 #1 May 14, 2003 what do you suppose would happen if record labels introduced random drug testing into contracts with artists, failure of which would lead to termination of the contract? Obviously, if one did it, they would just lose business to others who were not...but what if all of them did it? It's far fetched, but just a thought... -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SLOfreefall 0 #2 May 14, 2003 Drugs have probably produced some of the best music ever. Why would we want to eliminate that creative tool? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casie 0 #3 May 14, 2003 Quote Drugs have probably produced some of the best music ever. Why would we want to eliminate that creative tool? I totally agree with ya on that one!~Porn Kitty WARNING: Goldschlager causes extreme emotional outbursts! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 May 14, 2003 Interesting hypothetical, but wouldn't and shouldn't happen. The way I see it, drug testing shouldn't be used to control individual behaviour, but to protect innocent 3rd parties. The difference between entertainers and people involved in issues of public safety is that rarely does an innocent 3rd party die as a result of an entertainer's drug use. Unfortunately, people using drugs or alcohol with public safety responsibilities have occasionally in the past been irresponsible and have caused innocent deaths. So, I can definitely see why this is desirable by the government, in the case of airline pilots or perhaps by drop zone for tandem masters. It doesn't stop anything, but it certainly is a deterrent.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racer42 0 #5 May 14, 2003 That would put a substantial dent in their profit margin. It's cheaper to pay for rehab.L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 May 14, 2003 Quote The way I see it, drug testing shouldn't be used to control individual behaviour, but to protect innocent 3rd parties. The difference between entertainers and people involved in issues of public safety is that rarely does an innocent 3rd party die as a result of an entertainer's drug use. Some would make the argument that entertainers are role models and therefore their use of drugs contributes to the use by teenagers and is therefore a public health risk. Those are the kinds of thought police that I fear. And why I think random testing without probable cause should not be allowed. Not to mention the 4th ammendment violation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #7 May 14, 2003 very simple, stevie - there would be no more music in the world ok, well no GOOD music anyway Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #8 May 14, 2003 They would lose business to independents who put their music on the net for free. New record companies would arise to replace the old ones who drug test artists and prohibit internet distribution of music. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 May 14, 2003 Quote Some would make the argument that entertainers are role models and therefore their use of drugs contributes to the use by teenagers and is therefore a public health risk. Entertainers do have influence, but if that influence extends beyond the parents capabilites to control their children, then there are much larger issues involved. It is the parent's resonsibilty to instill a sense of right and wrong in a child. To leave that up to the image created by the entertainment media giants, is just, um, stupid.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 May 14, 2003 Agreed....wasn't implying that you thought that way...but there are people who do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YahooLV 0 #11 May 14, 2003 So, I can definitely see why this is desirable by the government, in the case of airline pilots or perhaps by drop zone for tandem masters. It's not just for tandem masters anymore.......http://www.curtisglennphotography.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #12 May 14, 2003 I see where you are coming from, but would you then say that everyone should be on drugs because it spawns creativity? Where would you draw the line of who is on drugs for creativity and who is on them for recreation, and what fields merit this kind of creative vehicle? -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #13 May 14, 2003 how about random drug testing for dz staff? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #14 May 14, 2003 Quote how about random drug testing for dz staff? feelings of deja vu..maybe i just need some drugs____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SLOfreefall 0 #15 May 14, 2003 I certainly wouldn't suggest someone start the use drugs to increase their creativity, but they do have a solid track record of producing creative masterpieces. I am totally against the idea of randomly drug testing people, unless they are in a position where others health/safety is directly/physically at risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #16 May 14, 2003 Correct about the fact that parents have a responsibility and always will. Look at the fact, though, that entertainers TRY to take that roll, and TRY to influence society, and succeed. I get a kick out of entertainers that say that they are just expressing themselves and don't care if people watch their videos or listen to their music, or buy their cd's...then they leave the interview in their brand new BMW or Jaguar or limo, and go on to their next public appearance. Seems to me that they care about their influence when they are talking about padding their pocket book, but when it comes to their influences in other areas, maybe those that they did not intend, they brush it off and say that it's someone elses fault or problem. Everything comes at a price, and celebrities know that the price of fame is some or all of their personal life...whether that is right or not, it is a fact. I, personally don't think that random drug testing is necessarily the answer, but it was a thought that crossed my mind considering that I took one this weekend. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sebazz1 2 #17 May 14, 2003 Bob Marely not stoned... yeah... whatever!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #18 May 14, 2003 Quote Look at the fact, though, that entertainers TRY to take that roll, and TRY to influence society, and succeed. I absolutely agree with this, even if I'm loathe to admit it. Look at the horrid fashions of the 80s and you'll see that Madonna, for instance, had a huge influence. However, I don't think fashion police should exist either. Strictly speaking though, the test you took this weekend wasn't random was it? It was a pre-employment screening -- right? A condition of employment? A voluntary act?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #19 May 14, 2003 Seems to me that a drug problem is a drug problem, and making "good music" is not a worthy justification. Maybe it's just me. Wonder if drugs had not been used if we would still have what we would consider masterpieces. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #20 May 14, 2003 Quote I certainly wouldn't suggest someone start the use drugs to increase their creativity, but they do have a solid track record of producing creative masterpieces. I am totally against the idea of randomly drug testing people, unless they are in a position where others health/safety is directly/physically at risk. Yeah, I would agree that the only time random drug testing is acceptable is when the person's job does concern the health and safety of others (including operating heavy machinery and such that could injure someone else). For most people, drugs are certainly not a requirement to produce creativity - but if an artist wants to use drugs for that purpose then why should anyone else care? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #21 May 14, 2003 Strictly speaking though, the test you took this weekend wasn't random was it? It was a pre-employment screening -- right? A condition of employment? A voluntary act? ---------------- Random - referring to someone not knowing when it is coming. Random - not equivalent to "involuntary" In the first post I said that the random drug testing would be introduced as part of an artist's contract...just like it is in our contracts with drop zones, or a pilot's contract with an airline, etc... -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dterrick 0 #22 May 14, 2003 Pink Floyd... the Doors... Janis...Marley-monn... Most jazz... all banned. The Beatles? Imagine a career with no Walrus? Elvis in the 'fat' years? damn near anythng that freeflyers listen to ...gone. What would today's kids listen to? Beethoven? Can't drug test a dead dude Quote Bob Marely not stoned... yeah... whatever!!! Dave and Sebazz, it's 'ya mon whatever mon ... (inhaling sound)' Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend (Lennon/McCartney) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #23 May 14, 2003 Quote Seems to me that a drug problem is a drug problem, and making "good music" is not a worthy justification. Maybe it's just me. Wonder if drugs had not been used if we would still have what we would consider masterpieces. I think if anyone says they "need" to have drugs to make good music then they do have a problem. It's alright for drugs to be an occasional influence - but if it's "necessary" then the person is probably not a "real" artist, just a chemically-induced artist :) We would probably have a lot fewer masterpieces without drugs... Drugs of many sorts have been influencing artists ever since art began... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #24 May 14, 2003 Was there anything in my post that said that we should ban music that was written by people who were on drugs when it was created? Who is to say that there would not be good music or books or movies without drugs? Considering that it's a hypothetical, we really don't know. It may not be the same as it has been, but who is to say that in this alternate reality where drugs didn't influence, that we would not be having a discussion about the amazing art that had been created in that world? -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #25 May 14, 2003 >I think if anyone says they "need" to have drugs to make good > music then they do have a problem. I think they do have a drug problem, but nevertheless they have been a big influence in rock music over the past 40 years. They've created some true classics. Listen to "Ulysses" by Cream and see if it makes any sense to a sober person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
