How Can You Continue to Deride Drugs When...

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:09pm

...Some of the most creative minds have been "influenced" by them? Would we really think of the Beatles so highly if they had not started dropping acid?

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:33pm

Well, there's also that minor thing where drugs have KILLED some of the "most creative minds" that you're talking about. You know, that whole thing.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:42pm

Pinguin, ALOT more people have died from alcoholism, lung cancer and heart disease that have EVER died from the "drugs" to which Cruel refers.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:54pm

Well, I mean, he's asking how can people "deride" drugs -of course many people die from many diseases and whatever and I don't even think drugs should be illegal, but to imply that we should be championing dangerous chemicals just seems ridiculous to me.

And most of the people who are dying from lung cancer and heart disease aren't dying at 27.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:01pm

Not deriding drugs is hardly the same thing as championing them--and what difference does it make if you die at 27 or 77? And I'm not talking about "diseases and whatever"--I'm talking about other drugs--like nicotine and alcohol that are socially acceptable and legal, but far more lethal than acid or weed or shrooms or other psychedelics. I thought you were a libertarian anyway, why do you find that "ridiculous?"

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:07pm

Like I said, I don't think drugs should be illegal, but that doesn't mean I think people should use them to try to be "better artists." People can do whatever the hell they want and I'm fine with that, but I still don't like that people use heroin. It's just not good for you. And neither is alcohol or tobacco.

I can be a libertarian and wish that people would not choose to use cocaine.

Personally, I think that drugs are bad. I wouldn't legislate others to not use them, but I have no trouble deriding drugs as unhealthy and dangerous substances that people should avoid.

Updated On: 11/25/05 at 03:07 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:13pm

Have you ever used any drugs?

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:17pm

Nope. I can't afford a drug habit.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:18pm

The Beatles were actually exceptionally lucky in their drug experiences- people have gotten seriously damaged from using a lot less LSD than they did. (And don't forget that Lennon moved on to heroin.) They themselves admitted to having some terrifyingly bad trips.

Moving on to my own opinions, I think LSD might have helped them achieve greater creative unity during Sgt. Pepper, and obviously inspired some lyrics and sounds, but it wasn't nearly as revolutionary for them as you seem to be implying. They were trying funky stuff, musically, in Rubber Soul and Revolver before they ever touched anything stronger than pot.


ETA- Dude, seriously, your statement is nonsensical. That's like saying alcoholism is great because so many great writers have been plagued by it. Ever wonder which, of creativity and drug use, is the cause and which is the effect?
Updated On: 11/25/05 at 03:18 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:30pm

That's what I figured. Although trying drugs and having a habit are two VERY different things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing whatever you want, drugs, liquor, french fries, excessive masturbation, etc. Knock yourself out. And his statement as I interpreted it, was there's a HUGE double standard when it comes to so-called destructive behavior. Plum says that people have gotten seriously damaged by using drugs, which is true, but people have also gotten seriously damaged from playing high school football. There's risk in everything.

That's part of life and there's no good reason why some behavior can be legislated while other behavior isn't. That's all I'm saying.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:45pm

Just out of curiosity, are you against helmet and seatbelt laws, too?

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:48pm

The laws, yes. I figure if you're dumb enough to go without them, we can stand to lose you.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:55pm

Hm. How about no-smoking areas in restaurants? (Sorry if this seems nosy; I'm just trying to figure out your brand of libertarianism.) Updated On: 11/25/05 at 03:55 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 4:01pm

Not at all--but that's a bit different--when people smoke in enclosed areas, they infringe on others' happiness--not wearing the helmet/seatbelt is only dangerous to the one chooses to do so--same with the drugs--but the moment your habit disrupts my evening or my workplace, that's not cool. Do what you want, just don't bother me. I guess that's closest to being my brand of libertarianism, though I'm not really a libertarian...I don't know what I'd call myself, other than Blanche.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 4:09pm

Well...anyone who's lived with an alcoholic or other addict might argue about your definition of "no harm done", but okay.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 4:43pm

I'm liberal, but I would highly discourage anyone from touching drugs or cigarettes, or abusing alcohol.

They just @#$% people up.

And Pot does damage. My cousin has marajuana induced schizophrenia.

But that said, The Netherlands has seen marajuana abuse drastically drop since legalising it (by their own citizens...foreigners are a different story completely).

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 4:48pm

Paradox, you're pointing out something I think is vital- we keep overlooking culture. For example, Great Britain and Russia both have a legal smoking age of 16, but the latter country has a much higher smoking rate. It's about more than legal regulation.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 5:01pm

For sure.

It's about education as well, and societal values.

Here in Poland (which shares a border with Kalingrad (little tiny piece of Russia), smoking is seen as nothing, so everyone does it.

Drugs need to still have weight, but saying, "You can't do it," just encourages people to do it.

It's a tough issue...

[Plum]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 5:06pm

I dunno. "You can't do it" worked pretty well on me. But some people aren't quite so cowed by authority. :P

[amasis]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 6:35pm

not wearing the helmet/seatbelt is only dangerous to the one chooses to do so--same with the drugs--

Not true if the person with the habit is responsible for a family. In fact, when you look deeply, you'll see that there are very few things that ONLY affect you. On the surface it might look like that, but in most cases that's just not true.
Updated On: 11/25/05 at 06:35 PM

[paradox_error]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 6:37pm

You put that nicely, Amasis...

Plum, it worked pretty well on me too. Plus being the youngest of five, I didn't feel like making the mistakes my siblings did...

[Taryn]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 8:18pm

Not wearing a seatbelt can also knock you around a car and do damage to others in it.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 8:46pm

Well, in that case, don't eat fried foods because that clogs your arteries and then you'll have a stroke or a heart attack and then you'll leave all your kids without a father/mother.

And don't get into the bathtub because you can fall and break your neck and then you won't be able to work and then you'll all starve.

How far are you going to take that logic?

As I said before, life is a risk. There need not be laws to dictate everything people can and can't do.

And I'd like to hear just how many people have died because someone in the car didn't have a seatbelt on--I would bet you it's far less than the number of people who die from bee stings. So does that mean we shouldn't go outside?

And amaris, that's very sweet and idealistic, but I don't care about children. May not sound nice, but it's the way I feel.

[amasis]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 9:08pm

I don't care about children. May not sound nice, but it's the way I feel.

That is very sad. It's as if you have never been at the receiving end of someone caring about children, whether directly or indirectly.

Although I actually agree with you that *ideally*, there should not be a need for laws to regulate things like that. If the majority of people actually had awareness, actually care about others, and are able to reflect on how this or that action would affect others, we would need far fewer laws. I take care of two teenagers, and my way with them is to have almost no rules at all. I tell them that ideally, everything is based on developing the right principles and motivation, and if they could develop that, there would be no need for any rules. They seem to understand, and it's working very well. But that's only 2 kids, and it's taking extensive, continuous dialogue to make it work.


Updated On: 11/25/05 at 09:08 PM

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/26/05 at 12:44am

lildogs -I totally agree with you about how the law should be handled, but the thread wasn't called "how can you make drugs illegal when..." so I wasn't really talking about that. I just don't appreciate the kind of attitude that implies that all the good artists we've had were creative because of drugs, which is both insulting and not exactly constructive towards young, studying artists, in my opinion. I would never tell my friends, "well, you know, the Beatles were good because they did some LSD. You should go check that out." Like paradox, I don't want people to use, I just don't think it's my business to arrest them for doing so.


In any case -seatbelt LAWS? HA, totally off the subject line, but seriously, don't you think it's the individual's responsibility to use a seatbelt? Do some of you really think that more people use seatbelt's because the law tells them to do so? Do you think someone driving home from work doing no harm to anyone whatsoever should get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt?

Ugh, I think it's unnecessary legislation that wastes everyone's time. But I guess that's just me. And perhaps, who by the way Plum, I don't event think is the libertarian in the thread. Or maybe he is? HA, who knows.