I don't mind drug users who turned out all right. Shows they are normal people like the rest of us who grow up experimenting and discovering who we are without ruining their lives. That's not to say I would advise it but it worked out for them and they are more knowledge because of it. That knowledge can serve them well when discussing social and health policies.
In what way would I be more knowledge if I had huffed paint when I was 12? And I think it is pretty clear it worked out for Obama, Bush and O'Rourke they were playing with a stacked deck.
I’d imagine most successful people have done illegal drugs. Probably had friends and experienced life.
Believe or not, from the experience itself so long as I mentioned no permanent impact of any kind. You can learn a lot both good and bad from personal experience. If you don't believe that then you probably think you are wise but in fact are not.
If it doesn't have a permanent impact, how is it doing anything and what are we talking about exactly? I have personal experience with people before and after they huffed paint long term. It fried their brain and turned them into r****ds, essentially wards of the state. citation? I'd imagine illegal drug use is much more common among insane street people and prostitutes than the general population.
does a medical researcher who has done neither but studied brains of both know less or more than a former user of both? It's a ridiculous argument you seem to be making.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say? That cocaine use is as bad for you as huffing paint? I was just pointing out you looked silly jumping from talking about someone doing cocaine to huffing paint.
You seemed to be saying if I had at one time snorted coke of a hooker's ass I wouldn't "compare" substances you think are too different to mention in the same thread on an basketball BBS. It is pretty obvious I wasn't comparing physiological damage potential of the substances, I was challenging an assertion that doing drugs will allow people to be more knowledgeable. I think you should have to defend statements like that. Just as I think you should defend why you imagine most successful people are drug users.
You also linked an article about substance abuse when no one said anything about that. I’m guessing you just did a quick google to try and look smart.
I’m not saying it’s necessary to have tried something to discuss it, but it could help prevent someone from looking like a complete fool as you have on this subject.
You said most successful people have done illegal drugs, with nothing to back that up at all. I said most of your homeless and prostitutes have and I gave you statistics. Now you have turned to name calling. I'd love to know your reasoning.
Trying a substance and abuse is completely different. You provided an article that had nothing to do with what we were discussing. So neither of us have provided anything.
So your position here is use and abuse are not linked. I'd love to see any citation for that. I think it is far more likely that drug use at an early age is similar to parenthood and leads to worse outcomes. To be fair, parenthood could be argued to make a person more knowledgeable and is not a selfish act like drug use.
My position is that social people tend to be more successful in business, and I wouldn’t be shocked if most of these people have tried an illegal drug at a party or with friends at some time in their life. Trying and being a junkie is completely different. If someone has had sex, they’re not automatically considered a sex addict. I’m not sure how you don’t understand this.
that would be permanent impact of any kind. the fact you can't understand that logic makes me think you might have been huffing paint LOL.
