Ban Performance Enhancing Drugs from Showbusiness

[Stephon]

Oh jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick. . .

Ok, Jonathan, because you asked for it:

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan the Jester
To: GD
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: private email

I am disappointed that you wanted to behave with integrity but could not wait for my response although we live in different time zones.

I think that putting personal correspondence on bulletin boards is rude and in some cases, (fortunately not this one) could cause a lot of offence and ill feeling and I suggest you don't do it in future.

Your emoticons don't fool me. You are very concerned about how other people view you and you are anxious to be seen to be taking me on. And I am enjoying this far more than you would imagine. You can put this one on the board too if you like, but if you do please put it on in it's entirety.

You are just as pompous as I am.

Jester.

The simple fact of the matter is that I didn't get a response, so I posted. I forgot about the time zone difference. It was a mistake. Sue me.

There are a handful people on this forum whose opinion of me are of consequence. You are not one of them.

Perhaps you think you are "winding me up", perhaps you're serious--don't know, don't care. This is boring. I'm through with you.

Clearly you fancy yourself a master manipulator, and hold yourself in very high regard. Hope it keeps you warm at night.

[jester]

Very good point Em which I will come to in a second.

First Stephon: I don't sleep easier at night. It's my insomnia that drives me to this. All I can say is I Gotcha!

Back to Em. I'm for the performance industry bannning Nestle!

Yes I am sure that weed is less addictive and the effects far more sociable than alcohol.

However society offers you protection by law, which you are entitled to demand, so morally you are obliged to obey the laws that you think are dumb. In the way that my uncle obeys speed limits even though he thinks they shouldn't really apply to drivers as good as he is. In the way that fewer people have sex with 12 years olds in britain than they did in Victorian Times. Not everybody has the same idea as to what laws are good and bad. But we either fight laws through democratic process or we obey them.

Now I understand there are circumstances where the price of obeying the law is far higher than to disregard it, but I think taking recreational drugs isn't really one of them.

If peopl beleive that a drug should be legal then they should campaign for it to be legalised, not declare themselves above the law and just do it.

I have to say that I am human and I am not perfect. I am not going to pretend that I am whollier than thou. I am just telling you what I think (which isn't always what I do.)

As for Nestle. I agree with you. And it is very difficult not buying their food in Britain because they own so damned much of the market. My wife goes spare whenever our kids find the label on something else (they put their logo about 5 microns across on some goods.) But you can't argue for ethical consumer spending if you buy illegal recreational drugs.

[martin ewen]

gotcha! indeed
So suffering from insomnia a jester rants about a drugged performer who "goes out for 30 minutes and performs about as well as I did"
Makes some rightwing jabs, asks for argument, people respond. Logically he gets done like a dinner because his position revolves around being bored being selfish and not really thinking his subject or his replys through.
As a last defence he uses that desperate "what you thought I was serious, more fool you." ploy.
little realising than in using it nothing he subsequently stated would be given any credence whatsoever.
Hoping no-one noticed he plows on and starts developing potential allies (or simply wasting others time who still accord him respect because they don't feel sufficiently used yet)
The original subject having been admitted to being nothing other than a bored windup he continues attempting to be taken seriously using an even thinner defense that Sometimes he might be serious and sometimes not.
You should get a good book or surprise us all by actually standing behind what you write.
Some performers want to entertain, others simply need attention.
I think you've tipped your hand.
I liked the arrest story though, Can't say if it really happened.

[jester]

welcom back Martin

Well I disagree. But it's good to hear from you again Martin.

Since when did you become milk monitor?

I am not using anybody and I am not right wing. Not everybody who disagrees with your definitive opinion is right wing in the same way that not all mime artists are ponces with white faces and striped jerseys.

Martin, you know as well as I do that refering to views that differ from your own as "right wing" is a childish and ill thought out stance. It is something that you for one are well above.

I don't think I've been done like a dinner either. Not even you (and you are by far the best at arguing on this forum) could do me like a dinner.

Some have chosen to make this thread personal, but nobody has come up with a decent argument against my proposed ban.

I applaud those people who have responded with wit and humour.

But the opposition?
All they have come up with so far is:

"I like drugs
We don't like you
If you talk like that we will all dislike you
Mick Jagger
You are sad
You are pissing me off etc etc etc.
You will lose this argument so pick another battle...
There are other bad things in the world."

Em has made some good points. Stephon started off quite well.

I am not trying to seek alliances and I am able to concede points to those who disagree with me with good grace.

And I'm sorry, but somebody who starts out telling me that I've pissed them off and then ends by stamping his feet and declaring "I don't care, I'm through with you." is a bit easily wound up and frankly asked for it. I don't beleive everything I'm arguing here, I am exploring an argument.

I have in the past written stuff that I wholeheartedly and passionately agree with. And I do have veiws on this issue. But who could possible take the comment about drug testing the oscar winners seriously? Mind you the more I think about it....

Yes I am quilty of being ambigious and it may be difficult to know when I am being serious and when I'm not. I am just being provocative. I don't agree with hard drugs, so what. Not everybody does.

Frankly I'm insulted that you of all people have entered this thread without comprehensively assassinating my arguments.

And I have had a few emails from people who agree and disagree with me on some points but would not like to say so or argue in front of this group. They do not want to be judged and I can see why.

[martin ewen]

no I'm sorry, its too late. I HAVE JUDGED YOU.
No milk for you till next tuesday unless you can admit that essentually left wing wants to rule via consensus and right wing by decree. Thank you that is all.

[Stephon]

Oh, now Jonathan, don't get your patchwork panties all in a wad just 'cuz I'm not interested in playing your reindeer games anymore.

Your pony's pretty. Really. And he should be awfully proud of his one trick.

"All I can say is I Gotcha"--ahh, at the end of the day, truer words have never been spoken.

hugs 'n' handies!

[Barry]

This is just so neato to see who has something intelligent to say, who has something interesting to say, who has something pointless to say, who has something poorly thought out to say, who has something funny to say and for that matter why i am saying anything at all and for that matter negative attention is still attention. And i guess all i have to say is wakajawakajawakajawaka waka jawakajawakajawaka. Hell, man...if you dont like drugs, dont do 'em. (I cant beleive i actually took the bait, i had been resisting so well). Responding to this at all is some kind of drug. I don't think i will do any more, but thank you for offering.

[Peter Voice]

Jester, why do you think you can get a rational discussion from an irrational premise. What you suggest is totally impossible.

Who tests whom? Does the muso's union test musos or does the venue owner? Do "they" test the members of the Academy who vote for Oscars? Come to think of it, shouldn't we test audiences, since they are the ultimate artists' arbiters?
When do you test people? It might take 20 years to write a book.
Who defines who is and isn't an artist to be tested. Do they test the entire cast of "Lord of the Rings" and the opening ceremony of the Greek Olympics. What about festival directors who might enjoy the odd spliff?

Illegal drugs are punishable by the full weight of the law all over the world (even Holland lists several) but that doesn't stop their use.

Short of solitary confinement or execution, no-one can stop an artist from creating. The arts and artists have always and will always simply go underground and thrive. Without the experimenters and risk takers much of mainstream would slowly suffocate in it's own mediocrity.

Having said all the above, in my 25 yrs on the street, I've met very few performers who would even consider performing stoned. I wouldn't have to take my shoes off to count them. While many performers smoke, those who don't use any rec. drugs at all are, by a long way, in the majority.

If all you really want, as you say, is to not have to compete or work with people who use recreational drugs then perhaps you should consider joining the scientologists. They own a considerable slice of the arts and entertainment industry and I'm sure you'll find many like-minded souls there.

[Evan Young]

Jester. You keep asking us to come up with valid arguments to yours. I havn't seen any arguments for your point. You mentioned that buying illegal drugs supports terrorism and violent crime rings, but that has nothing to do with performing. You said that you want to ban performance enhancing drugs. Can you prove that using any drugs gives a performer a clear advantage over other performers? Can you prove that using drugs has an adverse effect on the entertainment industry as a whole? Have you lost any gigs because of it? you said in an email that you have some facts about this stuff but nobody was interested. I'm gonna call you on it, bust that shit out.
Right now your proposal has no foundation or substance, it's just a statement. Tell me why the performing community should be responsible for enforcing drug laws?
If you can give us some real reasons on why the entertainment industry should ban performers who use drugs, maybe we could argue it. Until then I'll just leave it as this
fuck you and the horse you rode in on

[Butterfly Man]

If it tastes good, spit it out.

[jester]

Dear Evan.

Stephon is quite right, my pony is beautiful, however she is a virgin and I can't let you have your wicked way with her. As for myself, I don't think you would find me attractive if you met me in the flesh, but thanks for the offer. Besides, as Stephon already knows, once you've seen my patchwork panties it is difficult to sustain the mood.

Okay. Left wing is rule by consensus. By who's consensus, the plebian majority or merely the liberal elite that subscribe to this forum?

Testing for drugs. Hmm! I think I already mocked my own proposition earlier when I mentioned the Oscars. It is a good point Peter. And you are absolutely right about performing stoned although I'm sure that some drugs have the reverse effect.

On Evans point about what has drugs and terrorism got to do with performing? Well unless you are involved in a political theatre group I don't really know.

[jester]

Arguements for

Performance enhancing drugs enhance performance, and although we are a loving community, we are still theoretically competing in a free market. If people take performance enhancing drugs then their competitors may feel obliged to put themselves at risk by doing the same.

No I have not lost any gigs because of drugs. However, I refused to perform at three in the morning at a gig once because I knew I would be too tired to juggle fire safely by then and the promoter suggested that I take something for it. When I declined his kind offer he was quite affronted. He has since used another act who is happy to work mix and mingle and performances for 40 hours with breaks because of the pills they take.

This is an exceptional case I know. My main problem with people who take drugs is their judgement can be really off and they can be aggressive or do stupid things. I worked in a nightclub recently where I refused to do fire in doors because of the low ceilings and drapes. A smack head at the same gig couldn't see what the problem was and offered to do it instead. I then pointed out that if he played with fire in the building I was getting out and I would still expect to be paid. The promoter asked some of the other artists how they felt (in private where smack boy couln't hear) and they said they agreed with me. The following week I do same gig with same kid and he can't beleive he wsa going to be juggling fire in there. Bet it didn't stop him taking more stuff later. (I didn't ask what he was on.)

However, Alcohol has pretty similar results with some people and I hate them too and I wouldn't want acohol banned.

Personally I don't need to take drugs to piss people off - as this thread seems to have proved beyond all doubt.

[jester]

arguments against

If you banned artists for drugs you would be censoring them. So while I am against drugs I would not want somebody to be censored because they have a different view.

Artists have to be able to express themselves, even if they are naughty rebellious people like Evan who are big and clever and say things like "fuck". Therefore I have just defeated my own proposition.

Executing them is a bit hard even by my draconian standards. Putting them in prison is expensive, and would only expose them to even more drugs. Fining them would be cool I guess. But then they'll turn to crime to pay the fines, or take even more performance enhancing drugs to get bigger hats.


Now Evan.

I'll give you some statistics if you tell us who the "rock Star" you were hanging around with at Christmas was.

[Evan Young]

I'll email you about my musicain friend.

thanks for your good humor posts, you made me laugh.... seriously!

here is when I have a problem with druged out performers. In boulder there is a really limber performer who smokes pot on the mall all the time in front of everybody. I'd prefer it if he practiced some better discresion. He's also very paranoid about the other performers because he doesn't get along with us (we don't follow the same pitch cutousys). At any rate, I'm not sure it's from the pot.
Then there are the crack head street performers, esp the ones from the new orleans school of street performing. These guys are excessivly agressive and often cause a negative public opinion of street perfoming, which results in anti-busking laws. Even after these guys get off the stuff it can take years for their temperments to go back down.
So yeah, these people suck, but I don't think the drugs help their shows at all. not even a little. Drugs don't really help my show. I've done shows high on various drugs, drunk, and anything else I could think of to make it more fun for me, and that's about all it did. Never made me a better performer. I perform sober now. the energy drinks help if I time them right. Drugs have helped me network though. Ya know, like, get high with a new friend and get a gig or advice or a helping hand down the road.
I know of an agent around here who used to deal coke to his performers... like, do you want the cash, or the coke.... that's kind of messed up if you ask me.
So there we go. I have personal and direct experience on how drugs can screw stuff up for our profession, just like in any other profession. I still don't see any call for trying to regulate eachother. Your actions speak for you as an indavidual and we will deal with eachother as individuals.

[jester]

A Pain Killer

I once broke my thumb. It really hurt. So I was prescribed with pain killers to see me through the day.

They helped a bit but not much. And then I fell on it and it really hurt so I went to the hospital.

I was offered one shiny red translucent pill and told to take it home, not to mix it with any alcohol, not to drive for at least 12 hours.

So I drove home. No work next day so I took the pill. It really worked. I felt great. I didn't want to go to bed (11pm) so I decided to catch up with some friends on this Saturday night. So I walked 9 miles to their house.

I nearly didn't have any freinds on Sunday. I thought we were having fun. They were too concerned about me, or scared of me to ask me to leave. Apparently I talked, ranted and performed what I thought was improvised comedy until 5am. Then I just fell over and slept on the floor in their kitchen for 12 hours. A doctor was called, who helped drag me into another room where they threw a blanket over me. Luckily my freinds were able to pronounce the pill I had been telling them about. I'd forgotten about the alcohol bit and had already drunk a shandy that night before I took the pill.

apparently I'm overbearing and hyper anyway. My poor friends. I'm so sorry.