But again, you never know the effects of what alcohol, weed, etc. will have on you. Some people can drink every weekend or smoke marijuana every Sunday and lead happy, healthy, normal lives while others can have have their first taste of alcohol or one joint and end up with a heavy addiction. No one knows how their body will react physically or mentally. I, personally, don't feel it's as cut and dry as, "she/he knows what will happen." When someone is taking their first drink, do you seriously believe they know they will become an alcoholic? Negative.

Exactly, simple as that, but i dont blame the people that are using the drug addicted against innocent Ppl card.

I do agree and feel it's pointless to try to change someone's opinion, but I don't think it's pointless to discuss and debate why it is you stand where you stand.

No, its a decisión.

Well, actually Amy Winehouse is not known to half of the world like here in Asia so her death is not news here while the Norway tragedy was at the headlines of almost every newspaper and tv news program here. So I think it's just a matter of which news is more significant to a certain group of people.

I completely agree and understand. While I don't believe that one life is worth more than another, I do find that it is hard for me to grieve for somebody (that I'm not close to) when they die, especially a stranger. I feel terrible about what happened in Norway, but did I cry? No. I didn't know a single person that died there. When I found out that Amy died, did I cry? Yes. I, and many others, felt "close" to Amy through her music. It helped me get through some rough times. And while she was an addict and ultimately caused her own death because of it, I don't think that it's fair that people are attempting to discredit her and the amount of publicity that her death is generating. Amy didn't choose to become an addict. Amy didn't choose to die. Yes, she chose to get involved with drugs and alcohol at some point, but somewhere down the road, it got out of control. At the end of the day, she hurt nobody but herself (physically, atleast), and it's unfortunate. No matter what anybody says, she was an extremely talented woman. And if you would rather not hear her name, or think that her death is no big deal, then that is fine. But keep it to yourself. I'm tired of seeing people bitch on Facebook, Twitter, etc about how "annoying" it is that people are still talking about it, when it literally just happened.

I agree with all three of you.

Exactly. And I think both sides have very understandable reasons for that. Why do people have to squabble over things like this? Respect each other, and respect both tragedies.

You are absolutely correct. It is a decision, which brings us right back to my original point on this tangent: both Norway and Winehouse were unavoidable, based on decisions made, and both Norway and Winehouse were avoidable, based on decisions made. It's a very simple, logic-based statement. And in stating that, the discussion of "one was avoidable and one wasn't" is moot. The discussion of "91 people died instead of 1" is moot. And the discussion of how Amy Winehouse or an innocent child lost their life is moot. We are not discussing whether their deaths are equal, but whether lives have equal merit. So, again, I address the forum: Do you believe one life can be more valuable than another? Do you believe the life of Amy Winehouse is valued less than the life of an innocent child lost in Norway?

the death of one is a tragedy while the death of many is statistics

Well if Amy touched them in someway with her music or in interveiws then its understandable they'll be more sad she died then if some randomer died.

Amy Winehouse is a prominent public figure admired by many for her music and talent. Of course people are more concerned with her death than the death of 92 Norwegian people who we didn't even know existed a few days ago.
I keep on seeing people on Facebook saying there surprised at the fact that people care more about Amy's death than the deaths in Norway and I'm just like you must be naive if you think people would care more about Norway.

However when you take into account that Amy has been an alcoholic,drug addict and excessive smoker for years and she died from an overdose it does make you think that maybe she doesn't deserve so much sympathy and when you compare that to the 92 innocent people who were murdered in Norway.

First of all I want to say that I am devasted by the both tragedies.
Many of you are saying that Amy didn't choose to become an addict. This is of course true - no one wants to destroy his/her life in such a way. She was aware that she was an addict and even tried to "cure" her addiction. Whose fault is this? It's not only Amy's. Her close friends should have been more insistent. Now it's too late. But many of you forget that if the addict doesn't make the first step and doesn't really want to help him/herself, no one would be able to. I am actually angry at Amy because in my opinion she didn't fight her addiction with all of her strenght ( I cannot be sure, I wasn't there to actually see what she was doing - this is my opinion). Just don't act that she didn't have a choice - oh yes she did. She even went to rehab but clearly it wasn't enough.
It is clear that Amy's death will make a huge impact on society but should it be bigger than the death of many more completely innocent, yet anonymous people, knowing about her self destructive behaviour? It is all up to every individual.

This.

We live in a culture where the death of a drug addicted, junkie soul singer gets more coverage than the murder of 92 innocent people.

Both are sad stories but its weird to think more people are crying about someone overdosing on drugs than so many people being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Just saying, even there might be people died in that tragic incident are Amy's fans or have listened to her music and liked it. Some probably listened to her songs before they died. I dont know why I bring this to the conversation. Perhaps Im just saying. But musicians make music and inspire people so I think they deserve the overwhelming news more than ordinary people. If I die I have nothing to be talked about. But true, more than 90 people are just a lot.

No, Vin, I did not miss the point, so look again.

We are not discussing death by depression, we are discussing death by drug abuse - a preventable death. Whether the depression was preventable is irrelevant, because the death by drug abuse was.

No. Like I said, death by drug abuse is a preventable death. Death by massacre is not. When the man pulled the trigger, victims had no power to change their fate, and there had been no knowledge that could have led them to safety beforehand. With a drug addict, the power rests in their own hands all the way up to their death.

Wrong! You are the one who does not "actually comprehend". You had no idea what I meant by "avoidable," so you made up this reply in return, running with an incorrect interpretation of "avoidable". It actually means preventable death. If you'd like to learn more, I suggest you hit up WebMD.

I also see some statuses like that. "90 die in Norway but Amy Winehouse is the REAL tragedy right? Disgraceful!"

And I'm thinking, bitch Amy dying is just as sad, especially since we all have some kind of public/media relationship with her. We have insights to her life, we read about her a lot. We have an attachment to her life, so obviously we will all be more sad over Amy Winehouse. Some people just don't appreciate human life. Both stories are awful, but people are dragging Amy's death down a notch and no one is doing that to Norway. Everyone just needs to respect that people have died and not make it into some argument or debate over which one is worse. They're both equally as awful.