I'm going to listen to it. I must agree that many musicans have this attitude, but as far as I see from my position somewhere at the bottom of this whole musician-hierarchy, the higher the musican gets the most likely one will use drugs and play music affected by it. Or there are the underground ones who use drugs, play music affected by it, but they accept this status in public, thus if someone listens to their songs, they perfectly know that they listen to a song from a band who is a well-known addict or so.
Since I don't have any experience with drugs (okay, I know alcohol and cigarettes are drugs, but those are at least legal
) I don't know much about the connection about the songs themselves and the chemicals. What I think is that no matter if someone uses drugs or not, a song's reception should definitely not be affected by that factor. A song is either good or not, no matter if the artist is a junkie or a saint. However, the person itself should get that criticism and face it's consequences. The problem is not that a song written by a junkie gets popular but that the guy becomes that too. And that would still not be a problem if popularity wouldn't come with such "side-effects" as becoming role-model for many -mostly young- people and such.
To cut it short, in my opinion most underground bands are still unaffected by drugs, or at least their music is. I wouldn't say that about those who you see in MTV or anywhere in the popular media.
Harvester