World Of Warcraft has destroyed lives too. I am just kidding but seriously. How does the scenario of Punk being heel against Jeff Hardy defy logic? If it happens to be "beyond you" then I could understand but it certainly does not defy logic. Allow me to explain.
The fans love Jeff Hardy, which make them relate to him like he is their friend or they just flat out they love him being the underdog, the man has battled problems with drug addictions, house fires, and being beating up by his older brother. None the less they love him because he appears to be trying but he always ends up falling into the pitfalls of addiction.
He appeared to overcome those issues when he had two strikes and climbed the ranks to become champion.
Along comes Mr. Punk, who does not have any problems but instead of trying to help Jeff Hardy he brags about how he never touched drugs and pokes fun at Jeff Hardy's trials and tribulations. Thus inciting the boo's of the crowd.
Much the way that if you had an old friend or your father, whom you love, who was a recovering alcoholic and was doing really well but then he had a relapse and your straight edge buddies started ripping on him for being weak or assaulting him for his bad choices you would, i am guessing, feel sympathy for your father/friend and tell them to back off (equal to booing their actions).
The fans liked Punk but Jeff is their old "buddy" and they do not appreciate Punk's "better than you" campaign against Jeff Hardy.
The angle could play out the other way too. Punk approaches Jeff and offers him help and appears sincere and Jeff slaps the sh*t out of him, then Punk and Matt Hardy stage an intervention to save Jeff and he blows his top. The fans would relate to Punk's sincere approach to save Jeff Hardy, because they want to save Jeff too.
You can detect a hint of Punk's elite attitude in your own statement. "I'm straight edge as well due to seeing how drugs and alcohol can destroy lives first hand I've never even taken a sip of alcohol or taken any pills drugs etc."
By you defining yourself as "straight edge" we would know that you stay away from drugs (with the exception of caffiene possibly, but I do not know you) but you insist on mentioning that you never even took pills or sipped alcohol. Why is that necessary? That would equate me saying, "I like sweet tea, I drink sweet tea." But maybe it was to point out that there are many straightedgers who have made the choice after experiencing the troubles of drugs but you never even made it there. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
With that written may I ask this question? Have you ever eating food made with Pam Non-Stick Cooking Spray which contains alcohol, used a mouthwash that contains alcohol, what about sugar alcohols that appear under different names that are found in processed foods, gums, cookies, and candies? Just wondering.
It defies societal logic. That is what it does. In society, a whole hell of a lot of people see drugs as bad, so that if you don't do them, you aren't succumbing to the evil that they could potentially bring. So if this were society and not wrestling, Punk would be an upstanding citizen and Jeff would be outcast. That is the logic that it defies. But in the ring, obviously Jeff was possibly the biggest face, right up there with John Cena if not just a bit more popular, in the company. The fans would not boo Jeff just because Punk is telling the truth. People hate hearing the truth, which is why people hate Punk, because A) he is telling the truth and B) he was acting like he was superior to everyone in the crowd. Trust me I saw him live in Rockford, Illinois, his home state, and he got booed to hell. I think that says something.
Oh and the reason people started to boo Punk was because he fucked Jeff over, remember? He took his title using MITB. He didn't just come along, say "Jeff, you are a drug addict and I want your title." He fucking took it by beating an already battered Jeff Hardy. It was the perfect opportunity for Punk to be heel, use MITB to take the title from the known drug user who is the crowd favorite, and then preaching about his lifestyle as better than us. There is no one better to have used for Punk to turn heel that is currently in the business, and I dare you to find someone as popular to get Punk so hated.
Now I am not Straight Edge, won't claim to be either, I have drank before, but I don't find anything huge about doing drugs or drinking alcohol. It just doesn't appeal to me that often, so when it does, I'll have a cold one or two or three. I don't care if my friends do it. I care about them, and wouldn't let them do anything that would harm them. But hey, some of my friends are users, can't stop them if they are old enough to make their own decisions.
Now onto the topic at hand, I apologize for getting sidetracked.
Will there be another sXe superstar in WWE? I realize that it has gotten bigger over the years, but honestly, I don't know who all can do it like Punk can. For people in real life that aren't wrestlers, I don't mean you. I mean I don't know other wrestlers who would be able to do it like Punk has. You are constantly on the road, you are aching to death from all of the bumps you take, I'm thinking that you may pop a couple vicodin or something to ease the pain. But in this crazy world, there could be a few other wrestlers who lead the sXe lifestyle.
Will it be used as a future gimmick? Highly doubtful, because if it is, people may look back and say, Punk was so much better and all that jazz. It would take away some of the luster that Punk has, I mean the first ever sXe World Heavyweight Champion, that is something in itself. But who wants to be the second ever sXe World Heavyweight Champion? The gimmick itself would probably suck with someone else because the wrestler trying to do it would try to emulate Punk, instead of just letting it flow freely.
Oh well. I say only use Punk for the sXe gimmick, at least for a good long while, until long after Punk retires. It just doesn't seem like anyone else could garner what Punk has done not only in the WWE, but also in the Indys. 