Imagine if a band were drug tested prior to hitting the stage and then told they could not play because they were under the influence of a performance diminishing drug?
There is a long-held notion that creative people are "allowed" to use drugs or alcohol because it helps them find their muse, develop a suitable dramatic scenario, free their thinking and reduce the sense of panic that some performers experience when faced with an audience who may or may not like what they are about to see.
If we shift this into any other working context (a musician playing a two-hour set to an audience is work) then what other work setting would allow, passively endorse, the notion it was OK to show up for the job either stoned or to settle in and get drunk?
The answer of course is that this is widely regarded as fine, by both musicians and venues.
If I went to work out of my tree, I would be told to go home and quite possibly lose my job.
If you are not in a state to drive or about to stagger of the stage, should a performer be allowed an instrument? Some performers might argue they do their best work while drunk/stoned but how do they know?
In my early performing days in Europe, the venues I played provided free drinks to the musicians so the scope for reckless behaviour was wide open.
Having done this a couple of times convinced I had turned in an absolute blinder, it was something of a comedown to find that in fact I had played and sung way below my usual standard – in other words it was rubbish.
This was an eye opener on two levels. One - I had thought I was brilliant when I wasn't. Two – that was how I made a living at the time and if I did not get the work, I had no money.
This simple equation was the clincher and I reduced my drinking prior to the show on the basis that people have paid good money to see me play so deserved to get the best I can do.
Clearly there is a big double standard for musicians.
Apart from the working while under the influence of performance diminishing drugs, this can often develop into a destructive pattern where the drugs and alcohol become a burden rather than a help.
This story has played out often as tragedy. Names such as Amy Winehouse come to mind as talented people who have been destroyed by their substance abuse.
In her case, it appears that the industry and those around her did not manage to keep her safe.
It could be argued that the music industry was co-dependent - as long as she was selling millions of albums.
Next time you go see musicians go to work on stage make sure they know that, if they are completely out of it, you as the punter have paid good money to see great music.
This might actually be helpful as musicians like to be appreciated for what they do and may then be less inclined to hide behind performance diminishing drugs.
* Terry Sarten (aka Tel) is a musician, writer and social worker.
