Turn on thread page Beta

"Drugs are for mugs" watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    I don't trust people to know what's best for them; just think how stupid the average person is, and realise that half are even dumber than that.
    Haha, is that a George Carlin quote?

    Also, if people don't decide what's best for them, who does?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    If drugs weren't illegal, then I would probably condone them for artists. I mean, who cared if they have negative side effects, they are only artists.
    I guess they'll have to subside on glue for now, only break out the illegals for special occasions


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    IME, drugs are great fun, and certain ones in certain situations can really open your eyes to thoughts and things in life that you usually shut out. I think that's why they lend themselves naturally to creative arts. They can be a terrific tool for expanding your mind, bonding with others, or just staying up for two days straight and letting the delirium write your songs for you.

    However no drug, has ever turned someone into something they weren't already in terms of intellect and talent. You can't drop acid and suddenly become a musical savant, or take coke and scribble down a solution to the collatz conjecture. So it's a little disingenuous to attribute all the masterpieces of those who took drugs, to the drugs themselves, although they can certainly help some creative processes.

    Point being you can be a mug for taking drugs because you expect them to augment the person you are and your abilities. And it isn't anti-intellectual to say so. Because for every David Bowie, there's a thousand dead musicians who got caught up in the grand storm of drug abuse thinking codeine or heroin would give them that 'artists grit'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirKyrgystan)
    IME, drugs are great fun, and certain ones in certain situations can really open your eyes to thoughts and things in life that you usually shut out. I think that's why they lend themselves naturally to creative arts. They can be a terrific tool for expanding your mind, bonding with others, or just staying up for two days straight and letting the delirium write your songs for you.

    However no drug, has ever turned someone into something they weren't already in terms of intellect and talent. You can't drop acid and suddenly become a musical savant, or take coke and scribble down a solution to the collatz conjecture. So it's a little disingenuous to attribute all the masterpieces of those who took drugs, to the drugs themselves, although they can certainly help some creative processes.

    Point being you can be a mug for taking drugs because you expect them to augment the person you are and your abilities. And it isn't anti-intellectual to say so. Because for every David Bowie, there's a thousand dead musicians who got caught up in the grand storm of drug abuse thinking codeine or heroin would give them that 'artists grit'.
    I agree with this. But it doesn't refute my point that clearly the idea that only unintelligent wasters take drugs is idiotic, and that one would actually have to severely lack knowledge to think so.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I agree with this. But it doesn't refute my point that clearly the idea that only unintelligent wasters take drugs is idiotic, and that one would actually have to severely lack knowledge to think so.
    Well I totally agree with you that it is indeed simply not true that only 'unintelligent wasters' take drugs. But to call others 'idiotic' and that they 'severely lack knowledge' is just as dogmatic, snooty and ignorant an opinion as 'drugs are for mugs'.

    Heck a very well informed person could logically draw the conclusion that 'drugs are for mugs' if they focus on what we know about the links between drugs and drug overdose fatalities, increased risks of psychosis and violent behaviour, potentially fatal drug interactions, addiction, poverty etc etc. The same way you can draw the opposite conclusion based on the greats that have taken drugs, the correlation (NOT CAUSATION) between drug use and intelligence, spiritual and political revolutions inspired by drug use, off-label treatment for illness etc etc.

    It's not a matter of 'whoever doesn't see drugs as an overall positive thing is a moron'. It's a matter of how each individual weighs up the risks vs the potential benefits of drug use. Although I will say it is apparent that there is more ignorance and prejudice toward drug users than toward drug abstainers.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    No, it's pointing out lots of people who clearly aren't mugs who took drugs, thus refuting the idea that "drugs are for mugs". Pretty simple stuff really.
    Then I guess dropping out of uni isn't a bad thing cause Mark Zuckerburg did it and is rich then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    Then I guess dropping out of uni isn't a bad thing cause Mark Zuckerburg did it and is rich then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
    That logic has... absolutely no relevance to the point I'm making.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    That logic has... absolutely no relevance to the point I'm making.
    It does, Then again, i'm not taking a slogan designed to be catchy and not taken literally seriously
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    It does, Then again, i'm not taking a slogan designed to be catchy and not taken literally seriously
    Explain how it's relevant. I refuted the fact that some people think that drug users are all unintelligent by pointing to a number of very famous intelligent, or at least highly talented, people. I did not say that taking drugs will turn you into an intelligent or talented person, or that they will make you the next Steve Jobs, so your point is utterly irrelevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirKyrgystan)
    Well I totally agree with you that it is indeed simply not true that only 'unintelligent wasters' take drugs. But to call others 'idiotic' and that they 'severely lack knowledge' is just as dogmatic, snooty and ignorant an opinion as 'drugs are for mugs'.
    Well, they are clearly lacking in knowledge if they are not informed, and they clearly aren't, or they would be aware of the various people I listed in my post who took drugs and cannot be considered "mugs".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Explain how it's relevant. I refuted the fact that some people think that drug users are all unintelligent by pointing to a number of very famous intelligent, or at least highly talented, people. I did not say that taking drugs will turn you into an intelligent or talented person, or that they will make you the next Steve Jobs, so your point is utterly irrelevant.
    nor did i?
    I said saying that Smart people took drugs therefore drugs aren't for mugs
    is like me saying Smart people dropped out of university, therefore University is useless.

    both statements are taking a minority and using it to disprove a phrase with a simplified version of a bigger argument.

    so when do we see your next thread: "Re: Winners don't do Drugs"

    not like I agree with 'Drugs are for mugs' I just find your reasoning is just silly
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I do feel that, if you want to take drugs then go right ahead & do it. Just don't expect much sympathy if you then encouter issues. Drug dealers aren't known for their charity & tight regulations - there's always a chance that you won't be taking what you hope you're taking.

    I feel like the comparison made between alcohol and drugs can be somewhat off. Millions of people drink alcohol each week & therefore the effects of it, both long and short term, on large portions of society are well known. The majority of people know their limits & don't exceed them & the overwhelming majority of people who drink don't get violent or do anything particularly ridiculous; except perhaps moving a traffic cone down the road or something.
    No other recreational drugs, except perhaps nicotine, gets the same exposure (and we all know how harmful cigarettes are these days).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    oooh look at me and my fascinating drug life
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Anyone who says this phrase with any amount of seriousness is surely a philistine, an anti-intellectual, and someone severely lacking in knowledge. How can anyone claim this when Berlioz wrote at least a portion of his famous "Symphony Fantastique" whilst high on opium, Coleridge wrote the "Kubla Khan" after an opium influenced dream, Francis Crick used acid, Freud snorted large amounts of coke, Steve Jobs dropped acid, Robert Louis Stevenson wrote "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" on a six day coke binge, and there are countless other drug using geniuses like Baudelaire, Aldous Huxley, Philip K ****, Hunter Thompson, William Burroughs, Ken Kesey, Jack Kerouac, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, Robert Plant, Charlie Parker, Martin Scorsese... the list is endless...
    Sure these people were aided by drugs but these "geniuses" are in the minority. When it comes to the general population drugs are for mugs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    nor did i?
    I said saying that Smart people took drugs therefore drugs aren't for mugs
    is like me saying Smart people dropped out of university, therefore University is useless.

    both statements are taking a minority and using it to disprove a phrase with a simplified version of a bigger argument.

    so when do we see your next thread: "Re: Winners don't do Drugs"

    not like I agree with 'Drugs are for mugs' I just find your reasoning is just silly
    It's not the same at all. Saying 'drugs are for mugs' asserts that all people who take drugs are 'mugs', therefore even if only a tiny minority of people who take drugs are smart then the statement is false. Pointing out that smart people have dropped out of university and saying that university is therefore useless is so utterly and completely different that I don't even know where to begin. I can't even fathom how anyone could think it was remotely similar. You may as well have said "Oh so by your logic raping kittens is OK", it's so utterly bizarre that you think it similar. I... don't know where to start.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryblossoming)
    Sure these people were aided by drugs but these "geniuses" are in the minority. When it comes to the general population drugs are for mugs.
    Studies show otherwise http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/1...to-take-drugs/
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    Do you make all these profile pics yourself?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    obviously
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Well, they are clearly lacking in knowledge if they are not informed, and they clearly aren't, or they would be aware of the various people I listed in my post who took drugs and cannot be considered "mugs".
    You're barely even responding to what I said. Your list of people with achievements, is not the golden standard for determining whether drugs are overall, bad for people, and thus whether or not drugs are for "mugs". Furthermore, as I've said, just because a few dozen people do drugs and came up with some good ****, it does not mean that millions of people have not ruined their lives due to drugs. It's such a ridiculous generalization to say people must be lacking knowledge just because they don't rely on your cherry-picked poster-boys for drug use for their opinion on whether it is a practice for "mugs" or not. Worse still, it's incredibly hypocritical to fight an outrageous generalization with one of your own.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Probably is his quote, yes.

    Who does? Probably, in the distant future, a supercomputer, like in some of Asimov's short stories. In the near future, there should probably be a council of social scientists, economists, statisticians, etc., elected by the population, with votes weighted by the voter's knowledge and intelligence.

    I believe that is called a Technocracy.
    Yes, but the problem with technocracy's is that specialists are easily swayed by group dynamics and can get things utterly wrong, just as many did with the 2008 financial crisis.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IYGB)
    obviously
    He could've found them on some pseudo edgy tumblr page


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.