Pretty much what I came in to say. What he said was stupid, but come on, people, it’s his daughter! He’s watching his daughter kill herself in front of everyone on the planet, and there’s absolutely nothing he can do about it. If I were in his shoes, they would have locked me up in the nuthatch months ago, and I’d probably say some stupid things on the way.
Can’t we cut him a little slack? :dubious:
Note to self: Death Pool, 2009.
I am afraid that she might not be eligible for the 2009 death pool, as she might already be dead. 
Hang in there Amy! Only six more months!
If she makes it to Jan. 1, she’ll be on everybody’s death-pool list.
Rock’s answer to Nuke LaLoosh. Multimillion-dollar voice, ten-cent head.
What if she was kinda mediocre?
Good point. The sentence was poorly structured, two ideas commingled.
Any daughter. Amy just happens to be talented.
She’s a one-hit wonder who does a lot of drugs. This is what, the 1,783rd example in rock music history?
I’m not a fan or anything, but I’d wager that most one-hit-wonders fail to win five Grammy Awards in one night.
I know what it feels like to be self-destructive, but Winehouse takes that to incredible new heights. She should win some awards for that!
She’s the world’s first fully functioning suicidal artist*. She makes art until somebody (her) dies.
*Not really. I’m taking liberties for the use of a good quote.
I’m new to her work but I gotta disagree. Put aside your bias and you will see she’s a very talented singer/ songwriter.
In all seriousness, I think it probably is unethical for drug dealers to continue to profit from someone who’s so obviously in the midst of a life-wreck. Whether or not it does any good for Mr. Winehouse to call out these drug dealers in the press is another matter.
Wow. I read the NY Post, so I know who Amy Winehouse is, but I’d never actually heard a song of hers. I just now listened to “Rehab” on Youtube, however . . . and that is one fantastic song. It’s better to burn out than to fade away, yo.
Well, sure, but unethical pretty much comes with the territory, doesn’t it?
Drug dealers may or may not tend to practice their profession unethically (I really couldn’t say), but there’s nothing inherently unethical about what they do.
Wait. Bartenders come under your definition of drug dealers? I mean, I know alcohol is a drug, so that’s technically true, but c’mon - is it at all helpful to stretch a definition so broadly as to cover two quite distinct groups, with two probably quite distinct sets of ethics and behaviours?
It’s not just technically true. No doubt there tend to be differences, in practice, between those who sell licit drugs and those who sell illicit drugs, but they’re serving exactly the same function, and I see no reason why members of either group can’t be judged as acting ethically or unethically according to the same criteria. (Unless you believe that breaking the law is inherently immoral, in which case we’ll agree to disagree.)
Yes, I think it is helpful. What’s not helpful is the forced, arbitrary distinction between “booze” and “drugs,” and between those who sell/use one or the other. That is, if you’re not going to automatically assume that Sam Malone is immoral for catering to his regular lot of sadsack, underachieving, drug addicted regulars, nor should you automatically assume that distributors of other intoxicants are acting immorally.
Of course, it may well be that a much higher proportion of illicit drug dealers behavior unethically than their legitimate counterparts (though I suspect that the difference in this regard is not as great as is generally assumed). To say, however, that unethical behavior “goes with the territory” strikes me as wrong; I’ve known a fair number of dealers who seemed to act as ethically as any typical businessman.
I think the distinctions are too many and too great to make the grouping worthwhile. Bartending is generally the legal, long-established, licensed selling of regulated, quality-controlled substances
I don’t believe the same can be generally said of illegal drugs and the people producing and selling them. Sure, there are probably examples outside of the norm on either side, but that doesn’t make the groups the same.
Who would you be more likely to trust in some generic hypothetical ethical dilemma - a randomly-picked barman or a randomly-picked crack dealer?
But all you’re really saying here is that bartending is legal and selling pot or cocaine is not. Ethically speaking I don’t think that’s a meaningful distinction.
The barman, but there’s no reason a crack dealer can’t run his business ethically.
It’s not all I’m saying - for example, there is something unethical about selling a product that is not quality-controlled.
I’m sure there’s not. My point is that If I heard about drug dealers behaving unethically, it would not be the surprise of the century, for me.
