Using drugs makes you stupid.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Using drugs makes you stupid.

Post by Diogenes »

Career criminal hands over debit card, Texas ID during bungled Dallas bank robbery


Image

Pugh's crime career stretches to 1980, when he received his first of three DWIs. He received 10 years for cocaine possession in 1990, and was out of prison in time to commit the two Dallas County aggravated robberies. He also has convictions in Dallas County for burglary and driving with a suspended license.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 209ac.html



Obviously his drug used didn't affect anyone else. I have it on EXPERT authority that he wouldn't have caused ANY trouble if drugs had been legal.

Oh, Wait! Isn't Alcohol Legal?

Hmmm....

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

One data point?

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Betruger wrote:One data point?

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.


Actually, i'm not going to belabor the point. If I were so inclined, I could find more examples than anyone would care to look at. While this may be the tactics that the proponents of drug usage follow, I don't think it serves any worthwhile purpose.

As this particular article was timely, I thought it was appropriate to post it as I discovered it. From time to time, I may find another example of a drug addicted criminals being incredibly stupid, and I will post it for everyone's amusement. This is the same methodology I follow for posting Media Bias, Bad Democrats and "Doomed" news.

You may, if you wish, tally the "Data Points," but anyone that's had experience with these people are fully aware that this is not an outlier, but an example of their consistently stupid behavior, and how it adversely impacts others.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Diogenes wrote:
Betruger wrote:One data point?
A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.
Gee, your first data point on your journey of a thousand miles to prove that stupid people do stupid things. Keep digging, you may just prove it to yourself eventually! :roll:

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

It's true that using drugs does make you stupid, and that stupid people are often more inclined to use drugs. It's not true that all stupid people use drugs or that all drug users are stupid people.

It's also true this sort of argument is an example of what's called the anecdotal evidence fallacy. It's not "one data point." It's a fallacious argument. You're never going to have a valid argument that comes to the conclusion that "using drugs makes you stupid" because there is a world full of engineers, doctors and lawyers who use drugs all the time and they're not stupid.

They're just idiots.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

When someone takes the libertarian view that we should decriminalize drug use, don't make the mistake of assuming they are in favor of it.

Yeah, drugs will mess you up.

But the libertarian view, if drugs make you stupid or if being stupid leads you to be more likely to try drugs, is that we do not need to make laws to protect people from their own stupidity.

Stupidity, as Heinlein and many others have pointed out, is a capital offense.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. "
Excerpt from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love

The argument against criminalization of drugs is more a question of not wishing to make violent criminals rich in a vain attempt to protect the stupid from themselves.
Last edited by Tom Ligon on Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Betruger wrote:One data point?
A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.
Gee, your first data point on your journey of a thousand miles to prove that stupid people do stupid things. Keep digging, you may just prove it to yourself eventually! :roll:

Stupid people do stupid things, by definition. It is my intent to demonstrate that most drug users end up becoming stupid people. :)

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

GIThruster wrote:It's true that using drugs does make you stupid, and that stupid people are often more inclined to use drugs. It's not true that all stupid people use drugs or that all drug users are stupid people.

It's also true this sort of argument is an example of what's called the anecdotal evidence fallacy. It's not "one data point." It's a fallacious argument. You're never going to have a valid argument that comes to the conclusion that "using drugs makes you stupid" because there is a world full of engineers, doctors and lawyers who use drugs all the time and they're not stupid.

They're just idiots.
The argument is more complex than that. I agree with everything you've said above. For many people, drugs are no problem whatsoever, but for some, they are simply deadly and destructive to themselves and everyone around them.

The laws and social stigma against drug use were not caused by those people who are capable of self control and might use drugs sensibly. (Like Thomas Jefferson e.g.) The laws and stigma are in place because people have discovered that a large chunk of the populace simply cannot handle them without dramatically increasing the danger to themselves (which I really don't care about, unless they have responsibilities, like children. ) and everyone around them.


As i've pointed out before, We make speed limits for the Average driver, not the top flight race car drivers. We don't have a different standard for one set of people, and another set of standards for others, except in the area of licenses and permits, etc.

I don't get worked up about people trippin on LSD, Mushrooms, pot, or other relatively benign stuff. (except for how it induces others to try the stuff.) H3ll, I wouldn't even care if they chewed cocoa leaves, but Crack/Meth/Heroin are simply evil and destructive wherever they are tolerated.

Even though some can try them and be immuned to their ill effects, a significant number (and in my opinion a majority) cannot. Even if the percentage of destruction is 1% of the population, we have to either throw those people away, or require the other 99% to obey the same rules as the 1%.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

GIThruster wrote:It's true that using drugs does make you stupid, and that stupid people are often more inclined to use drugs. It's not true that all stupid people use drugs or that all drug users are stupid people.

It's also true this sort of argument is an example of what's called the anecdotal evidence fallacy. It's not "one data point." It's a fallacious argument. You're never going to have a valid argument that comes to the conclusion that "using drugs makes you stupid" because there is a world full of engineers, doctors and lawyers who use drugs all the time and they're not stupid.

They're just idiots.
The argument is more complex than that. I agree with everything you've said above. For many people, drugs are no problem whatsoever, but for some, they are simply deadly and destructive to themselves and everyone around them.

The laws and social stigma against drug use were not caused by those people who are capable of self control and might use drugs sensibly. (Like Thomas Jefferson e.g.) The laws and stigma are in place because people have discovered that a large chunk of the populace simply cannot handle them without dramatically increasing the danger to themselves (which I really don't care about, unless they have responsibilities, like children. ) and everyone around them.


As i've pointed out before, We make speed limits for the Average driver, not the top flight race car drivers. We don't have a different standard for one set of people, and another set of standards for others, except in the area of licenses and permits, etc.

I don't get worked up about people trippin on LSD, Mushrooms, pot, or other relatively benign stuff. (except for how it induces others to try the stuff.) H3ll, I wouldn't even care if they chewed cocoa leaves, but Crack/Meth/Heroin are simply evil and destructive wherever they are tolerated.

Even though some can try them and be immuned to their ill effects, a significant number (and in my opinion a majority) cannot. Even if the percentage of destruction is 1% of the population, we have to either throw those people away, or require the other 99% to obey the same rules as the 1%.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

GIThruster wrote:It's true that using drugs does make you stupid, and that stupid people are often more inclined to use drugs. It's not true that all stupid people use drugs or that all drug users are stupid people.

It's also true this sort of argument is an example of what's called the anecdotal evidence fallacy. It's not "one data point." It's a fallacious argument. You're never going to have a valid argument that comes to the conclusion that "using drugs makes you stupid" because there is a world full of engineers, doctors and lawyers who use drugs all the time and they're not stupid.

They're just idiots.
The argument is more complex than that. I agree with everything you've said above. For many people, drugs are no problem whatsoever, but for some, they are simply deadly and destructive to themselves and everyone around them.

The laws and social stigma against drug use were not caused by those people who are capable of self control and might use drugs sensibly. (Like Thomas Jefferson e.g.) The laws and stigma are in place because people have discovered that a large chunk of the populace simply cannot handle them without dramatically increasing the danger to themselves (which I really don't care about, unless they have responsibilities, like children. ) and everyone around them.


As i've pointed out before, We make speed limits for the Average driver, not the top flight race car drivers. We don't have a different standard for one set of people, and another set of standards for others, except in the area of licenses and permits, etc.

I don't get worked up about people trippin on LSD, Mushrooms, pot, or other relatively benign stuff. (except for how it induces others to try the stuff.) H3ll, I wouldn't even care if they chewed cocoa leaves, but Crack/Meth/Heroin are simply evil and destructive wherever they are tolerated.

Even though some can try them and be immuned to their ill effects, a significant number (and in my opinion a majority) cannot. Even if the percentage of destruction is 1% of the population, we have to either throw those people away, or require the other 99% to obey the same rules as the 1%.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Tom Ligon wrote:When someone takes the libertarian view that we should decriminalize drug use, don't make the mistake of assuming they are in favor of it.

Yeah, drugs will mess you up.

But the libertarian view, if drugs make you stupid or if being stupid leads you to be more likely to try drugs, is that we do not need to make laws to protect people from their own stupidity.

Stupidity, as Heinlein and many others have pointed out, is a capital offense.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. "
Excerpt from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love

The argument against criminalization of drugs is more a question of not wishing to make violent criminals rich in a vain attempt to protect the stupid from themselves.

If we could erect a barrier between those people now using drugs, and those people who would START using drugs as a result of associating with those people who NOW use drugs, then I would say Great! Let them smoke or inject their brains out! The argument that people have a right to be stupid is one that resonates with me as well, but the problem is they are hurting others by spreading their stupidity!

If they wanted to have a chili pepper enema, I'd say go for it! The problem is, they want to screw with their mind and get other people to do it too! Build that wall separating drug users from their victims, (the poor saps they manipulate into following their folly.) and i'll agree you have a point.

You and I know both know that's impossible, so what is left? Declare these substances dangerous, and allow them to be administered only by licensed experts.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Diogenes wrote:A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.
truism
Actually, i'm not going to belabor the point. If I were so inclined, I could find more examples than anyone would care to look at.
But you will carry on with another hollow post saying how you wish you were inclined to type more about it but wont, except to say how you wish you were inclined but [etc]
While this may be the tactics that the proponents of drug usage follow, I don't think it serves any worthwhile purpose.
Sideways talk
As this particular article was timely
Darwin articles are news everyday.
From time to time, I may find another example of a drug addicted criminals being incredibly stupid, and I will post it for everyone's amusement.
Fluff. Take all the articles and other data points and squeeze a single synthesis from em. Or keep cherry picking single articles and spamming them as "clear evidence" without any actual analysis, with as much credibility as screaming " LOUD NOISES! ".
This is the same methodology I follow for posting Media Bias, Bad Democrats and "Doomed" news.
Meaningless
You may, if you wish, tally the "Data Points," but anyone that's had experience with these people are fully aware that this is not an outlier,
How do we know he wasn't stupid to begin with? Or a criminal to begin with? "Anyone knows [such and such] proves [your favorite argument]" is fallacious. Single data points are cherry picking, and drawing conclusions with zero discussion of the details is akin to a court of law skipping all due process.
but an example of their consistently stupid behavior, and how it adversely impacts others.
Can't see that without integral statistics, without the full picture. The full picture you paint simply won't convince people who disagree that govt ought to trump personal liberty.

The collateral damage argument is just an appeal to emotion. It might be tragic but then so are other crimes. That it's tragedy isn't the point. What those people arguably put their relatives thru is no different from a more direct trauma or offense, e.g. harassing them directly by, say, stealing their property and selling it for druggie's profit. Which is exactly one of the things druggies' relatives go thru, and it's not the drugs that's to blame but the druggie. At no point do the drugs suddenly get a mind of their own to dictate to the druggie what to do. At no point is the druggie made to do anything, no matter how difficult it is not to cave in to cravings for more drugs.

The argument resides not in repeating the same thing over and over like your counter-arguers were idiots, quoting articles to reiterate the same badly made arguments that they understood the first time. The argument is in clearly and transparently articulating why drugs are reason enough to support a govt solution that obviously isn't working, that actually does comparable amounts of damage as the drug use you deplore, in arguing why govt should be given sovereignty over freedom of choice, and so on.

MSimon and Tom Ligon have it right. I don't know how anyone can pretend to be American, to stand for all the things America is supposed to stand for, and trample individual freedom like this. It's enough to make a would-be immigrant have second thoughts.. Maybe America is just a dream. Maybe Americans don't really believe in those fundamental notions, only when it's convenient.

E.G.
In another thread I pointed out that the "inconvenience" of dealing with potheads isn't an excuse for handing over individual freedom to the govt, so the govt can "protect" us from ourselves and the "inconvenience" of those druggies nearby. Choice of word which you derided... Choice of word which I'd actually taken from your own posts.
There are more instances like this, but I don't know if it's worthwhile being that thorough, pointing em all out. Not when you don't even seem to make sense nor be really honest about this whole deal. E.G. when stalled, falling back to large bold text and calling others idiots. Zero credibility there. Same with arguing that people can't possibly fathom what the consequences of taking drugs are... except the consequences are in the news and on the grapevine. What a ludicrous argument..

Contributing to big govt just so it can "protect" us from our own freedom of choice, by wasting our tax money with busts and other utterly ineffective tactics? What?? Was I just teleported back to the socialist euro country I left for the US, expressedly to get away from that sort of thing?

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The problem is, that if you have a lot of drug users that are all stupid because of it and therefore incapable of living up to their full potential, society as a whole suffers.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

That's a platonic argument... Where's the analysis that quantifies exactly where to draw the line?

Otherwise I could just reiterate what someone with more authority than me said: Trading liberty for security means you deserve neither. Or say that society also suffers from present big govt solution to drugs: it entertains the big govt culture that's produced so many complacent Americans. It stifles research in the biochemical factors to blame.. It violates individual freedom. It says that being told what to do and think by the govt is a better choice than a population that takes responsibility for its own actions, that can take care of itself.

In my opinion the real killer here is the cultural. IMO legalization trumps prohibition, and the solution isn't just which platonic POV weighs heavier but lies in a comprehensive acclimatization to legal drugs. Just as the "dangers" of a society liberated to sex were comprehensively dealt with.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Betruger wrote:
Diogenes wrote:A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.
truism
Actually, i'm not going to belabor the point. If I were so inclined, I could find more examples than anyone would care to look at.
But you will carry on with another hollow post saying how you wish you were inclined to type more about it but wont, except to say how you wish you were inclined but [etc]
While this may be the tactics that the proponents of drug usage follow, I don't think it serves any worthwhile purpose.
Sideways talk
As this particular article was timely
Darwin articles are news everyday.
From time to time, I may find another example of a drug addicted criminals being incredibly stupid, and I will post it for everyone's amusement.
Fluff. Take all the articles and other data points and squeeze a single synthesis from em. Or keep cherry picking single articles and spamming them as "clear evidence" without any actual analysis, with as much credibility as screaming " LOUD NOISES! ".
This is the same methodology I follow for posting Media Bias, Bad Democrats and "Doomed" news.
Meaningless
You may, if you wish, tally the "Data Points," but anyone that's had experience with these people are fully aware that this is not an outlier,
How do we know he wasn't stupid to begin with? Or a criminal to begin with? "Anyone knows [such and such] proves [your favorite argument]" is fallacious. Single data points are cherry picking, and drawing conclusions with zero discussion of the details is akin to a court of law skipping all due process.
but an example of their consistently stupid behavior, and how it adversely impacts others.
Can't see that without integral statistics, without the full picture. The full picture you paint simply won't convince people who disagree that govt ought to trump personal liberty.

The collateral damage argument is just an appeal to emotion. It might be tragic but then so are other crimes. That it's tragedy isn't the point. What those people arguably put their relatives thru is no different from a more direct trauma or offense, e.g. harassing them directly by, say, stealing their property and selling it for druggie's profit. Which is exactly one of the things druggies' relatives go thru, and it's not the drugs that's to blame but the druggie. At no point do the drugs suddenly get a mind of their own to dictate to the druggie what to do. At no point is the druggie made to do anything, no matter how difficult it is not to cave in to cravings for more drugs.

The argument resides not in repeating the same thing over and over like your counter-arguers were idiots, quoting articles to reiterate the same badly made arguments that they understood the first time. The argument is in clearly and transparently articulating why drugs are reason enough to support a govt solution that obviously isn't working, that actually does comparable amounts of damage as the drug use you deplore, in arguing why govt should be given sovereignty over freedom of choice, and so on.

MSimon and Tom Ligon have it right. I don't know how anyone can pretend to be American, to stand for all the things America is supposed to stand for, and trample individual freedom like this. It's enough to make a would-be immigrant have second thoughts.. Maybe America is just a dream. Maybe Americans don't really believe in those fundamental notions, only when it's convenient.

E.G.
In another thread I pointed out that the "inconvenience" of dealing with potheads isn't an excuse for handing over individual freedom to the govt, so the govt can "protect" us from ourselves and the "inconvenience" of those druggies nearby. Choice of word which you derided... Choice of word which I'd actually taken from your own posts.
There are more instances like this, but I don't know if it's worthwhile being that thorough, pointing em all out. Not when you don't even seem to make sense nor be really honest about this whole deal. E.G. when stalled, falling back to large bold text and calling others idiots. Zero credibility there. Same with arguing that people can't possibly fathom what the consequences of taking drugs are... except the consequences are in the news and on the grapevine. What a ludicrous argument..

Contributing to big govt just so it can "protect" us from our own freedom of choice, by wasting our tax money with busts and other utterly ineffective tactics? What?? Was I just teleported back to the socialist euro country I left for the US, expressedly to get away from that sort of thing?

If you think the game is to make a rational argument, you've already lost it. Rational arguments never win anything. ONLY emotion works. This is all for amusement. This isn't an issue of personal liberty, this is an issue of whether someone is permitted to drill holes in the ship that we are all riding in, just because it amuses them.

The very idea that someone who has been tampering with their pleasure centers through chemical abuse is somehow in a position to make rational decisions about their "pleasure button" is ridiculous.

But then, so is this discussion, so the best thing to do is just enjoy it. :)

Post Reply