ewings
The Fly
Yeh, boy, sounds like real fun -- NOT!!
Drugs at U2 shows?
- Thread starter elviscostrummer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeh, boy, sounds like real fun -- NOT!!
Numb1075
ONE love, blood, life
Twas indeed.
to each his/her own
to each his/her own
elviscostrummer
The Fly
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 31
To Baudrillard:
For one I never "endorsed" drug use, I simply pointed out that it's effect on musice, for better or worse, is something that I think cannot be denied. I used a Bill Hicks quote to make this point simply because I think that it's interesting and worthy of consideration. I am not being an advocate for drug use, I just think that like anything else in life there are both good elements and bad elements to it. I've never understood the black and white thinking of having to say that drugs are just all bad and irredeamable and that we shouldn't talk about anything but bad drug experiences in public. The truth is that drugs are a huge part of the evolution of rock music and whether or not that is a good or bad thing is up to you, but there is no doubt about the fact that your record collection would be different without them.
Bono's "hero" Lou Reed once wrote a love song about heroin on The Velvet Underground & Nico record, undoubtedly one of the most influential records of all time. Now you can't tell me that that record would be what it is without the influence of drugs. Ironically, Running to Stand Stillis a basically executed as a Lou Reed song, so you can strike that from your collection as well. I would never try heroin, I would never recommend trying are heroin, and certainly none of us need a U2 song to tell us what horrible things it leads to, but I can safely say that it hasn't hurt my record collection. I'm not saying that to be crass, but only because it's true and I'm not going to ignore it just because it is socially unacceptable to say that more then just bad things have come from drug use.
You thank God that I am not an important figure endorsing drug use, and I contend that I don't endorse drug use, there is a difference between endorsing something and discussing something. The logic of saying that I am pushing for drug use is the same as the logic of people who wanted John Lennon to burn for saying that "The Beatles were bigger then Jesus Christ". Lennon WAS an important public figure and we all know how much damage he did to our society with his music by getting high and writing "I am the Walrus", I mean the Beatles really should have been more socially responsible and written a song called "Hey kids, Don't do Drugs" because telling the world that "All You Need is Love" just wasn't enough. But in all seriousness would The Beatles catalogue be different without drugs? You bet it would, there would be no Sgt. Pepper's, no Strawberry Fields etc... Now I'm not saying that as drug advocacy, just as something to consider, I mean maybe if they hadn't had the drugs it would've stopped them from letting Ringo sing tunes. Did we really need "Octopus' Garden"?
Now you might think that "publicizing the use of something that does more harm then good is irresponsible" but I think that that is no reason for us adults to shy away from discussing both the good and bad aspects of drug use. Perhaps if I was some important figure on a world stage I would have to choose my words or what I talk about diferently, but this is a discussion between adults about a serious and complicated issue. I would never expect Bono to go out onstage and tell everyone to go get pissed drunk because it's been a lifestyle choice of his so why shouldn't it be for all his disciples, but I also won't fault him for owning a bar in Dublin. A former acquaintance of mine once told me about how when he lived in Dublin there was a bar that he would go to that Bono would come into during the day and and drink pints of Guiness. Now is it irresponsible for him to do this in public or is it his responsibiliy to go home and lock the doors and drink there as to avoid being taken the wrong way by his public, because that bar is a far more public place then this message board is.
You also say that you have never read any scientific investigation saying that long term drug use is helpful for the body -- seperate issue. I NEVER said that it was, in fact my point was never in discussing long term drug use and health at all. I will say, however, that in my personal view I would rather live an exciting and eventfull life like Sammy Davis Jr. and die at 52 then live some square lifestyle like Strom Thurmond and live to be 100. That is simply a personal preference, not an endorsement. I think that it's incredibly didactic to impose the belief upon people that the most important thing in life is to be as healthy as you can so that you can live as long as you can, sometimes having some fun is going to cost you. But if you want scientific proof of drug use and the longevity of the human body then just look at Keith Richards, he's cooler then ever. (that's a joke) You do, however, bring up the example of Sid Vicious, and the truth is that he never even played bass on a Sex Pistols recording and was turned down live. That guy was nothing more then a spectacle. Don't get me wrong, bad music comes from drugs as well, I think that Jim Morrison was a sensationalized hack who's writing only got worse and more silly as he descended further into drug use.
you talk about how hard it must be to witness a rockstar's downfall as a result of drugs. While I'm sure it wasn't easy for those around Brian Wilson to watch him go insane, it's certainley hard for me to regret it when I listen to Pet Sounds. The guy took LSD and decided to put a piano in a sandpit, that's awesome. Art is the one good byproduct of human suffering, it is the silver lining to life's harsh realities. You can't have light without dark, you can't have good without evil. You also can't simply blame the drugs for how people abuse them, you are the master of your own destiny and if you can't be responsible enought to know when you're screwing your life up and fail to consider the consequences of your actions then don't be surprised when you find yourself lagging behind the curve of life. I don't go and blame the food when someone goes out and gains 200 pounds eating cheeseburgers and ice cream everyday. I personally have never lost a relationship, never lost a job, never been arrested and have never had any health issues related to drug use and I haven't used drugs in years. So where's my public service announcement? Maybe I'm just lucky, but I do think that even debauchery should be practiced with some sense of personal responsibility just like eating should be. Food is a drug that is killing off people in American faster than anything else and I don't seem to remember Lou Reed writing a love song about high fructose corn syrup.
You bring up the example of Kurt Cobain, someone whom I happen to know quite a bit about as my dad worked for Nirvana's organization, and I'll tell you that Kurt was so screwed up from other things in his life that he would've ended up the way he did regardless of his drug use, the drugs were just a side effect of all the other things that he was tortured by.
You accuse me of being in denial, which is a really cheap arguement because there is no way to counter argue it. If I deny being in denial then that makes me "in denial". What am I denying? Are you denying that drugs have affected the music you listen too? This is not an arguement based on speculation, it is an arguement based on an analysis of history. The Beatles using acid is not an issue of speculation, it is a matter of fact, and if you think that there isn't an intimate link between drugs and the artistic product hat will timelessly be revered then that is just naive and perhaps you are the one who is in denial.
No one ever suggested that we should turn to rockstars for advice on health issues, don't put words in my mouth, and while we're at it, doctors aren't all that either on this subject. The only time I've ever felt hints of physical dependency on a drug was on pain killers given to me by a doctor after a major surgery. Luckily this never manifested into an addiction, but I certainly would have been better off had I been prescribed marijuana for my illness.
You should be confident that most musicians that do drugs don't make it out of the pubs, but it's not most musicians who use drugs, it's most musicians in general. Most drug free musicians never make it out of pubs either. It also must be noted that David Bowie hasn't made an essential album since Scary Monsters, but we can leave that discussion for another day.
I find it personally offensive that by my statement you would learn so much about me as to accuse me of wasting my days and my life and essentially calling me a "loser" becase I have an unpopular take on drug use and I happened to go see my favorite band on acid for my birthday when I was in college, a time which I might add I never got anything less then an A. Sorry for once thinking that a rock concert might be an appropriate venue for a psychedelic experience, maybe next time I'll save it for church instead. I think it's pretty short-sided for you to judge me for introducing this subject on a message board and somehow think that I'm in the ether because I'm choosing to talk candidly about an incident that happened 4 years ago.
For one I never "endorsed" drug use, I simply pointed out that it's effect on musice, for better or worse, is something that I think cannot be denied. I used a Bill Hicks quote to make this point simply because I think that it's interesting and worthy of consideration. I am not being an advocate for drug use, I just think that like anything else in life there are both good elements and bad elements to it. I've never understood the black and white thinking of having to say that drugs are just all bad and irredeamable and that we shouldn't talk about anything but bad drug experiences in public. The truth is that drugs are a huge part of the evolution of rock music and whether or not that is a good or bad thing is up to you, but there is no doubt about the fact that your record collection would be different without them.
Bono's "hero" Lou Reed once wrote a love song about heroin on The Velvet Underground & Nico record, undoubtedly one of the most influential records of all time. Now you can't tell me that that record would be what it is without the influence of drugs. Ironically, Running to Stand Stillis a basically executed as a Lou Reed song, so you can strike that from your collection as well. I would never try heroin, I would never recommend trying are heroin, and certainly none of us need a U2 song to tell us what horrible things it leads to, but I can safely say that it hasn't hurt my record collection. I'm not saying that to be crass, but only because it's true and I'm not going to ignore it just because it is socially unacceptable to say that more then just bad things have come from drug use.
You thank God that I am not an important figure endorsing drug use, and I contend that I don't endorse drug use, there is a difference between endorsing something and discussing something. The logic of saying that I am pushing for drug use is the same as the logic of people who wanted John Lennon to burn for saying that "The Beatles were bigger then Jesus Christ". Lennon WAS an important public figure and we all know how much damage he did to our society with his music by getting high and writing "I am the Walrus", I mean the Beatles really should have been more socially responsible and written a song called "Hey kids, Don't do Drugs" because telling the world that "All You Need is Love" just wasn't enough. But in all seriousness would The Beatles catalogue be different without drugs? You bet it would, there would be no Sgt. Pepper's, no Strawberry Fields etc... Now I'm not saying that as drug advocacy, just as something to consider, I mean maybe if they hadn't had the drugs it would've stopped them from letting Ringo sing tunes. Did we really need "Octopus' Garden"?
Now you might think that "publicizing the use of something that does more harm then good is irresponsible" but I think that that is no reason for us adults to shy away from discussing both the good and bad aspects of drug use. Perhaps if I was some important figure on a world stage I would have to choose my words or what I talk about diferently, but this is a discussion between adults about a serious and complicated issue. I would never expect Bono to go out onstage and tell everyone to go get pissed drunk because it's been a lifestyle choice of his so why shouldn't it be for all his disciples, but I also won't fault him for owning a bar in Dublin. A former acquaintance of mine once told me about how when he lived in Dublin there was a bar that he would go to that Bono would come into during the day and and drink pints of Guiness. Now is it irresponsible for him to do this in public or is it his responsibiliy to go home and lock the doors and drink there as to avoid being taken the wrong way by his public, because that bar is a far more public place then this message board is.
You also say that you have never read any scientific investigation saying that long term drug use is helpful for the body -- seperate issue. I NEVER said that it was, in fact my point was never in discussing long term drug use and health at all. I will say, however, that in my personal view I would rather live an exciting and eventfull life like Sammy Davis Jr. and die at 52 then live some square lifestyle like Strom Thurmond and live to be 100. That is simply a personal preference, not an endorsement. I think that it's incredibly didactic to impose the belief upon people that the most important thing in life is to be as healthy as you can so that you can live as long as you can, sometimes having some fun is going to cost you. But if you want scientific proof of drug use and the longevity of the human body then just look at Keith Richards, he's cooler then ever. (that's a joke) You do, however, bring up the example of Sid Vicious, and the truth is that he never even played bass on a Sex Pistols recording and was turned down live. That guy was nothing more then a spectacle. Don't get me wrong, bad music comes from drugs as well, I think that Jim Morrison was a sensationalized hack who's writing only got worse and more silly as he descended further into drug use.
you talk about how hard it must be to witness a rockstar's downfall as a result of drugs. While I'm sure it wasn't easy for those around Brian Wilson to watch him go insane, it's certainley hard for me to regret it when I listen to Pet Sounds. The guy took LSD and decided to put a piano in a sandpit, that's awesome. Art is the one good byproduct of human suffering, it is the silver lining to life's harsh realities. You can't have light without dark, you can't have good without evil. You also can't simply blame the drugs for how people abuse them, you are the master of your own destiny and if you can't be responsible enought to know when you're screwing your life up and fail to consider the consequences of your actions then don't be surprised when you find yourself lagging behind the curve of life. I don't go and blame the food when someone goes out and gains 200 pounds eating cheeseburgers and ice cream everyday. I personally have never lost a relationship, never lost a job, never been arrested and have never had any health issues related to drug use and I haven't used drugs in years. So where's my public service announcement? Maybe I'm just lucky, but I do think that even debauchery should be practiced with some sense of personal responsibility just like eating should be. Food is a drug that is killing off people in American faster than anything else and I don't seem to remember Lou Reed writing a love song about high fructose corn syrup.
You bring up the example of Kurt Cobain, someone whom I happen to know quite a bit about as my dad worked for Nirvana's organization, and I'll tell you that Kurt was so screwed up from other things in his life that he would've ended up the way he did regardless of his drug use, the drugs were just a side effect of all the other things that he was tortured by.
You accuse me of being in denial, which is a really cheap arguement because there is no way to counter argue it. If I deny being in denial then that makes me "in denial". What am I denying? Are you denying that drugs have affected the music you listen too? This is not an arguement based on speculation, it is an arguement based on an analysis of history. The Beatles using acid is not an issue of speculation, it is a matter of fact, and if you think that there isn't an intimate link between drugs and the artistic product hat will timelessly be revered then that is just naive and perhaps you are the one who is in denial.
No one ever suggested that we should turn to rockstars for advice on health issues, don't put words in my mouth, and while we're at it, doctors aren't all that either on this subject. The only time I've ever felt hints of physical dependency on a drug was on pain killers given to me by a doctor after a major surgery. Luckily this never manifested into an addiction, but I certainly would have been better off had I been prescribed marijuana for my illness.
You should be confident that most musicians that do drugs don't make it out of the pubs, but it's not most musicians who use drugs, it's most musicians in general. Most drug free musicians never make it out of pubs either. It also must be noted that David Bowie hasn't made an essential album since Scary Monsters, but we can leave that discussion for another day.
I find it personally offensive that by my statement you would learn so much about me as to accuse me of wasting my days and my life and essentially calling me a "loser" becase I have an unpopular take on drug use and I happened to go see my favorite band on acid for my birthday when I was in college, a time which I might add I never got anything less then an A. Sorry for once thinking that a rock concert might be an appropriate venue for a psychedelic experience, maybe next time I'll save it for church instead. I think it's pretty short-sided for you to judge me for introducing this subject on a message board and somehow think that I'm in the ether because I'm choosing to talk candidly about an incident that happened 4 years ago.
Numb1075
ONE love, blood, life
throw in the whole Led Zeppelin catalogue
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
elviscostrummer said:
Holy shit - that was the densest reply I have ever seen here!
I also say to each his own and if that means drugs – so be it – if alcohol is legal, so should certain drugs.
I have attended many a concert well bent out of shape, but when it comes to U2 – I am stone sober. I get to see them so rarely (in comparison to how much I would want to see them) that I would not want to forget any of it.
That said, I really could care less what people do around me. I say get drunk, get high – do what feels best to you, as long as it is not offensive to others. At the last show I went to at the Garden, there was a very straight laced older couple in the row in front of me. Many people were giving them interesting looks as to “hey why are they here.” Then when U2 hit the stage, they lit up a joint the size of a baby’s arm and knew every word to every song. Everyone, was then like:
So again, to each his/her own
HelloAngel
ONE love, blood, life
actually, nevermind.
I'm not a fan of browbeating. So.. yeah.
I'm not a fan of browbeating. So.. yeah.
Last edited:
ArrogantU2Fan
The Fly
Like many here I was going to concert and doing the drug/alcohol bit before you were born....I say go thru your stage of it...when you are 48 and enjoy a glass of champane or wine now and again then thats where you will be...Life is a progression....the youth rarely listen to the older folk...I have lost friends to drug overdoses and liver cancer...for me it has become a very rare thing....but i do not wish to take you younger folk away from learning the lessons of life the same way i did....learn on your own and then in 25 years you will be where you are then! Susan
thrillme
Refugee
indra said:
Adam's been sober for about 10 years. Their past 3 albums, at least one of them was sober for the recordings.
"Pop" is said to have some of Adam's best work, and that was in his current sober years.
Yeah that's true, if you read about what happened in the book written by Bill Flanagan, Adam wasn't pleased nor proud of what he did, nor "celebrated" it in any way. In fact, I think that was the turning point for him, as he started to quit drinking after the ZooTV tour.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
A lady next to me did drink too much. She had to be taken out of the GA in front of the railing. She didn't get to see the rest of the concert, missed half of it.
Last edited:
JMScoopy
Refugee
i had a little caffeine from pepsi before the pittsburgh show. 
elviscostrummer
The Fly
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 31
It nice to know at least one person on here likes me.
-macphisto-
Refugee
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,401
elviscostrummer said:
Please space your paragraphs next time!!!
Just a couple things
You say "I would rather live an exciting and eventfull life like Sammy Davis Jr. and die at 52 then live some square lifestyle like Strom Thurmond and live to be 100."
So you need drugs to live an exciting life? I feel sorry for you if that is the case. I just dont see how this is relevant in this debate?
"Bono's "hero" Lou Reed once wrote a love song about heroin on The Velvet Underground & Nico record, undoubtedly one of the most influential records of all time. Now you can't tell me that that record would be what it is without the influence of drugs. Ironically, Running to Stand Stillis a basically executed as a Lou Reed song, so you can strike that from your collection as well. I would never try heroin, I would never recommend trying are heroin, and certainly none of us need a U2 song to tell us what horrible things it leads to, but I can safely say that it hasn't hurt my record collection. "
It could have been an even better record without the influence of drugs. Once again, you dont need drugs to make a great song, is the mind not strong enough to have his own perception as to what kind of music he wants, or where he wants the song to go. The mind does not need a drug, and I feel sorry for the musicians that feel they need drugs to write great music, just like an athlete that thinks he needs steroids to perform better.
HelloAngel
ONE love, blood, life
Can we all stop quoting the entire long post? Thanks! 
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
elviscostrummer said:
You seem like a good egg, even if we have different preferences on drug use prior to or during U2 concerts.
Welcome to Intereference, where even the most seemingly innocuous question becomes a giant can o'worms.
elviscostrummer
The Fly
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 31
macphisto23 said:
Have you heard it? I'm not sure you have because you just made a seriously absurd statement. Someone back me up on this one for god's sake. And seriously don't waste your time feeling sorry for me, my life is awesome!
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Without drugs, the Velvet Underground would have written a song called "Cotton Candy" or something, and really, it just wouldn't be the same.
-macphisto-
Refugee
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,401
elviscostrummer said:
Ok I can say the same thing about U2's music, that if U2 had written The Unforgettable Fire not sober, then it wouldnt have been the same, it wouldnt have the same magic.
What I know, not think, is that a musician can write the same caliber of music without drugs.
jphelmet
Refugee
macphisto23 said:
case and point:
the mars volta:
deloused in the comatorium (the name gives it away) totally wasted on just about every known drug.
frances the mute- all members completely sober.
you can argue one is better than the other, but the band did not take a big change in direction or in the calibre of music they were making because of drugs.
or the new nin album- trent now completely sober- does his work suffer? I don't think it has.
longingforBono
War Child
Drunk people at concerts act like flipping morons. They remeber NOTHING of the concert later on though and you can fill them full of shit about what happened- which can be fun when you don't like someone.
"Remember when Bono pulled his pants down and showed everyone his ..."
And the drunk idiot is like "Oh yeah man that was a riot"
I like screwing with drunk people's heads.
"Remember when Bono pulled his pants down and showed everyone his ..."
And the drunk idiot is like "Oh yeah man that was a riot"
I like screwing with drunk people's heads.
baudrillard
Babyface
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 29
elviscostrummer.
It is obvious that we both don't agree on the same subjects. I want to take back the things I actually speculated about your personal life, since I would be making the same mistake that I've accused you of doing (and I believe in you that you are certainly not speculating). I regret that I was questioning your personal life in some aspects instead of your opinion .
It seems to me that you are well educated man/woman. That your apporach to the subject is painstaking and elaborate. You do a great job expressing ideas trough a medium that usually is filled with nonsense one-liners and easy quick replies. By that I dont mean that you have to write more than a line to be smart, its just that if you really want to be closer to be understood with a post, in a subject that requires some explanation, you'd better don't be surprised if people don't get you. You have done the right thing.
I stated on my previous post that I know that you werent endorsing drug use. I said that you sort of got caught by some funamentalists reactions, and with the whole "and not remember anything?" argument, and then you began to be more supportive of the effect of drug on rock.
Thanks for taking the time to reply my criticism. Now its clear to me that you are not neccesarily saying that is an intrinsicly good thing. And that its just a fact. I couldnt agree more with that one, and I tried to make it clear in my previous post, that there is hardly a dispute that drugs have had effects on the way music in conceived. I'm glad that your a not a jerk who believes that "drugs+rock= great music".
I have no doubt that drugs can make you feel great sometimes, but as you could know sometimes the experience is not that subtle. I will back you up about the Velvet Underground, it is simply amazing. Whether it would have been a better if they hadnt been using drugs around that time, its a subject that's better be left to quantum physics and parallel universes enthusiasts. But no matter what this is an outstanding record.
I agree with you once again when you say that art is an amazing catharsis to human suffring. It is also a way to celebrate all things beautiful. It can use an infinity of themes. But yes, of course that pain has been beautifully rendered in art.
I still mantain my opinion that drugs should not be recommended, as I still believe from my own experience and others, that the harms excel the benefits in the long run. Any serious doctor would tell you that. And for me a reliable doctor is an authority. (It really makes me mad that still some doctors would prescript anyhting so easily, and the fact that you were a victim of that is really embarassing for the medicine community. I wonder if its an endemic problem with doctors in the States, since I have read a lot about this issue. If someone wants to give his/her two cents it would be aprecciated)
I'm glad for the level of the respect that you carry with your conversations. Even if it could've been offensive for me to suggest or make you believe that you were a loser in some way. You reacted as intelligent people do.
I believe that you'd be a cool guy/gal to smoke a joint with and listen to Zooropa.
It is obvious that we both don't agree on the same subjects. I want to take back the things I actually speculated about your personal life, since I would be making the same mistake that I've accused you of doing (and I believe in you that you are certainly not speculating). I regret that I was questioning your personal life in some aspects instead of your opinion .
It seems to me that you are well educated man/woman. That your apporach to the subject is painstaking and elaborate. You do a great job expressing ideas trough a medium that usually is filled with nonsense one-liners and easy quick replies. By that I dont mean that you have to write more than a line to be smart, its just that if you really want to be closer to be understood with a post, in a subject that requires some explanation, you'd better don't be surprised if people don't get you. You have done the right thing.
I stated on my previous post that I know that you werent endorsing drug use. I said that you sort of got caught by some funamentalists reactions, and with the whole "and not remember anything?" argument, and then you began to be more supportive of the effect of drug on rock.
Thanks for taking the time to reply my criticism. Now its clear to me that you are not neccesarily saying that is an intrinsicly good thing. And that its just a fact. I couldnt agree more with that one, and I tried to make it clear in my previous post, that there is hardly a dispute that drugs have had effects on the way music in conceived. I'm glad that your a not a jerk who believes that "drugs+rock= great music".
I have no doubt that drugs can make you feel great sometimes, but as you could know sometimes the experience is not that subtle. I will back you up about the Velvet Underground, it is simply amazing. Whether it would have been a better if they hadnt been using drugs around that time, its a subject that's better be left to quantum physics and parallel universes enthusiasts. But no matter what this is an outstanding record.
I agree with you once again when you say that art is an amazing catharsis to human suffring. It is also a way to celebrate all things beautiful. It can use an infinity of themes. But yes, of course that pain has been beautifully rendered in art.
I still mantain my opinion that drugs should not be recommended, as I still believe from my own experience and others, that the harms excel the benefits in the long run. Any serious doctor would tell you that. And for me a reliable doctor is an authority. (It really makes me mad that still some doctors would prescript anyhting so easily, and the fact that you were a victim of that is really embarassing for the medicine community. I wonder if its an endemic problem with doctors in the States, since I have read a lot about this issue. If someone wants to give his/her two cents it would be aprecciated)
I'm glad for the level of the respect that you carry with your conversations. Even if it could've been offensive for me to suggest or make you believe that you were a loser in some way. You reacted as intelligent people do.
I believe that you'd be a cool guy/gal to smoke a joint with and listen to Zooropa.
elviscostrummer
The Fly
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 31
I very much appreciate your reply and I think that my reactions throughout this discussion have been admitidly a bit over-zealous and at times a little reactionary. I think I was just surprised at how many people were so quick to judge based on the nature of the post and that most of the replies were from people who were talking about sobriety since in the beggining I had directed the question to those who had been under the influence at a show, not at those who had never been and scoffed at the idea. I just felt a little blindsided by that so being I young I suppose that I was prone to a sort of an extreme and hyberbolic reaction. When I saw your original post I realized that I should flesh out my opinion of the subject, so while the post was addressed to you I intended it for the whole group, I didn't really mean for it to sound as angry or confrontational as it did, as a matter of fact I rather enjoyed the debate of this topic. Your post was simply the longest and had the most thought put into it so I figured that it deserved a reply with as much explanation I could give. I found your follow up post to be quite flattering and I'm glad that it seems like we both said things that made each other think, which is what debating an issue should be all about. This is simply a topic that has no empirical right or wrong answer to because drugs are just part of the human story and part of the human condition, some people use them to run to something, some people use them to run away from something but it is inevitable that people will always use them and the effect that this has on the world is immeasureable, I was just talking about one aspect of that. I thank you again for your kind and thoughtful reply. -Adam
ewings
The Fly
I wonder what the average age is of all who have been involved in this discussion??????
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
ewings said:I wonder what the average age is of all who have been involved in this discussion??????
Dividing the ages into the pro/anti split might prove interesting, yet predictable.
AtomicBono
ONE love, blood, life
The thing about Heroin is I've always found it to be a damn depressing song... 
I really don't think the song was meant to glorify the drug. "Heroin, be the death of me."
As for the original thread topic - no, I've never been at a U2 show under the influence, and I don't plan to either. The only sort of "drugs" I take are pills and I only do that when I'm down, and I'm a damn hypocrite for it since I think drugs are for tools. Smoking pot once in a while is no big deal, but stoners piss me off. Anything beyond pot - cocaine, heroin, acid, whatever...that shit gets deep. I personally wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Pot just makes you dumb (if you're a stoner, mind you, I've got no problem with people that do it sometimes), but that other shit can really fuck with you. Cigarettes annoy me, but whatever. Alcohol all depends on the person. There's a big difference between someone who drinks a beer or two a few nights a week and an alcoholic that depends on alcohol and is drunk all the time. My friend's dad is an alcoholic and that shit is not cool. Beating your kids = bad. Like I said though it really depends on the individual - some drunk people are totally harmless.
In the end I've got my views but I won't interfere with anyone else, I mean if someone wants to do drugs I ain't gonna stop them as long as it's not seriously threatening themselves or someone else.
I really don't think the song was meant to glorify the drug. "Heroin, be the death of me."As for the original thread topic - no, I've never been at a U2 show under the influence, and I don't plan to either. The only sort of "drugs" I take are pills and I only do that when I'm down, and I'm a damn hypocrite for it since I think drugs are for tools. Smoking pot once in a while is no big deal, but stoners piss me off. Anything beyond pot - cocaine, heroin, acid, whatever...that shit gets deep. I personally wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Pot just makes you dumb (if you're a stoner, mind you, I've got no problem with people that do it sometimes), but that other shit can really fuck with you. Cigarettes annoy me, but whatever. Alcohol all depends on the person. There's a big difference between someone who drinks a beer or two a few nights a week and an alcoholic that depends on alcohol and is drunk all the time. My friend's dad is an alcoholic and that shit is not cool. Beating your kids = bad. Like I said though it really depends on the individual - some drunk people are totally harmless.
In the end I've got my views but I won't interfere with anyone else, I mean if someone wants to do drugs I ain't gonna stop them as long as it's not seriously threatening themselves or someone else.
<3U2
Acrobat
I'm just against drugs completely. At shows, I agree with a lot of people, why waste all that money for a show when you're going to not remember the experience of it because you were stoned/drunk? At the three shows I've been to, I don't recall seeing any drunks except for after the Pittsburgh show and there was some weird faint smell in the ellipse in Pittsburgh too. I never plan on doing drugs...drinking in moderation, yes, but no drugs. I'm fine with other people's opinions, it is their choice, so anyone can do what they want. I would be uncomfortable being near someone really drunk at a concert. A drink or two would be fine with me, but not to the point where you're really drunk. I can't even drink yet anyways.
I will admit to not reading everything within this thread.
My rule of thumb is....if you can handle your drugs....do em...
If you can't handle them or you are experimenting for the first time....then don't do em. If you are experimenting....don't do them and ruin the groove of those around you.
Not to incriminate myself but personally I find pot quite "old skool" in order to watch a concert. I don't mind others smoking......(at least I know folks who are high on pot appear quite peaceful). Pot isn't for me at a U2 show. I've had a few puffs here and there before the boys come on.....but it's not my bag.
I've seen 19 U2 concerts. I would say perhaps 11 of them I was drunk or perhaps high on a drug. I have not forgotten anything that has happened at these concerts.
Do I need to partake in such items to enjoy a show? Hell no...U2 is my drug.
I will say that certain drugs enhance the experience......but by no means should one's behaviour ruin anothers because of their drugs/drink
Moderation is the key. Going to a U2 show is a party.
I wanna party....and I wanna rock and roll!
I went to see Nine Inch Nails yesterday in Toronto.....definitely not a U2 crowd by no means.......Trent used to be high off his ass. As someone posted before....he is now completely sober. His new album is definitely up to par.
At the NIN concert.....well.....*ahem*....let's say I witnessed some suspect behaviour......Should we judge people and their intake of sustances?? Only when it threatens you or their own lives. People make their own choices.
Besides.....some say Discoteque is about ecstasy anyway....
Crumbs was apparently written when U2 was drunk....
My rule of thumb is....if you can handle your drugs....do em...
If you can't handle them or you are experimenting for the first time....then don't do em. If you are experimenting....don't do them and ruin the groove of those around you.
Not to incriminate myself but personally I find pot quite "old skool" in order to watch a concert. I don't mind others smoking......(at least I know folks who are high on pot appear quite peaceful). Pot isn't for me at a U2 show. I've had a few puffs here and there before the boys come on.....but it's not my bag.
I've seen 19 U2 concerts. I would say perhaps 11 of them I was drunk or perhaps high on a drug. I have not forgotten anything that has happened at these concerts.
Do I need to partake in such items to enjoy a show? Hell no...U2 is my drug.
I will say that certain drugs enhance the experience......but by no means should one's behaviour ruin anothers because of their drugs/drink
Moderation is the key. Going to a U2 show is a party.
I wanna party....and I wanna rock and roll!
I went to see Nine Inch Nails yesterday in Toronto.....definitely not a U2 crowd by no means.......Trent used to be high off his ass. As someone posted before....he is now completely sober. His new album is definitely up to par.
At the NIN concert.....well.....*ahem*....let's say I witnessed some suspect behaviour......Should we judge people and their intake of sustances?? Only when it threatens you or their own lives. People make their own choices.
Besides.....some say Discoteque is about ecstasy anyway....
Crumbs was apparently written when U2 was drunk....
Last edited:
The Sad Punk
Blue Crack Addict
I've never been to a U2 concert before, but they're one of my favourite bands to listen to while stoned.
Few of my friends and I were going to smoke up before going to see them next year, if they come to Adelaide. But I wouldn't do it during the actual concert, that's pretty rude.
Few of my friends and I were going to smoke up before going to see them next year, if they come to Adelaide. But I wouldn't do it during the actual concert, that's pretty rude.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
You can't deny alcohol or drugs' signifigant impact on certain musicians/albums/songs in history. Sometimes it's a good impact, sometimes it's a bad impact, it does different things to different people.
Let me say it again:
It does different things to different people.
Let me say it again:
It does different things to different people.
u2wedge
New Yorker
financeguy said:
I have never heard of this rule in all my days of beer drinking in the US.
I would suspect that any bar with a two drink maximum might find themselves out of business rather quickly!
u2wedge
New Yorker
U2DMfan said:
I agree... Hendrix, the Beatles, the Doors, Janis Joplin, the Dead, Bob Dylan, the list goes on... all of these bands/artists had some sort of association with the drug culture during their peak.
It's actually pretty amazing to me that we had tours such as PopMart and ZooTV that were put together by a sober band! Imagine what those shows would have been like if they'd been under the influence of something!
There's the whole Adam missing a show thing, but I'm not talking about being hung over, I'm talking about the creative energies that can be stirred when 'under the influence'.
Similar threads
