Hey every one this is an example of how useless junkies are. FFS these people were almost useless.

[limitles]

[SrslySirius]

This anecdotal evidence is irrefutable. I'm going to by some crack and heroin immediately.

[SrslySirius]

BTW, 4 of those people died before they turned 30.

[limitles]

BTW, 4 of those people died before they turned 30.

I'm sorry that you were the first one in. Sorry in that you display the ignorance I'm referring to.

These world renowned artists are projected(by some) as drug abusing failures instead of geniuses.

Genius like Beethoven or whomever you like. The fact that mind altering substances had a part in their downfall

should be noted but certainly not used as an attacking point. If your dumbass government didn't school you in this

direction you might not think guns are more dangerous than drugs.

You are a fool btw.

[SrslySirius]

BTW, 4 of those people died before they turned 30.

I'm sorry that you were the first one in. Sorry in that you display the ignorance I'm referring to.

These world renowned artists are projected(by some) as drug abusing failures instead of geniuses.

Genius like Beethoven or whomever you like. The fact that mind altering substances had a part in their downfall

should be noted but certainly not used as an attacking point. If your dumbass government didn't school you in this

direction you might not think guns are more dangerous than drugs.

You are a fool btw.

lol. I don't agree with any of that. I'm a staunch opponent of the war on drugs, and I don't think very many people consider these artists failures. As you said, they're world renowned. It's still pretty sad that they all basically killed themselves, and serve as pretty good examples of why drugs are bad mmkay?

[limitles]

I'm sorry that you were the first one in. Sorry in that you display the ignorance I'm referring to.

These world renowned artists are projected(by some) as drug abusing failures instead of geniuses.

Genius like Beethoven or whomever you like. The fact that mind altering substances had a part in their downfall

should be noted but certainly not used as an attacking point. If your dumbass government didn't school you in this

direction you might not think guns are more dangerous than drugs.

You are a fool btw.

lol. I don't agree with any of that. I'm a staunch opponent of the war on drugs, and I don't think very many people consider these artists failures. As you said, they're world renowned. It's still pretty sad that they all basically killed themselves, and serve as pretty good examples of why drugs are bad mmkay?

Wow, can you read? Everything I say you add something that wasn't there. I was referring to what I've read here and elsewhere.
People throw the drug addict label on
many of the "stars" in the entertainment industry. (Scott Weiland)
It's accurate, they do take drugs but it doesn't make them weaker except in the eyes of the non artistic straight community.
And it doesn't make them less smart. Most of these artists are highly intelligent. The connection between artistry and drugs is complex.
There is no way you can say drugs are bad....blanket statement, because who knows what these people would have done with or without.

[SrslySirius]

There is no way you can say drugs are bad....blanket statement, because who knows what these people would have done with or without.

I'm more or less with you until this line. For every Cobain and Hendrix there's a million others with their lives in shambles, sleeping in boxes. That shit is ugly. I really don't see how you can glorify it or try to argue that it improves society. I don't know if heroin helps artists write better songs, and I don't really care either.

I'm all for drug legalization, but for different reasons. Certainly not because I think it would be totally awesome if more entertainers were shooting up.

[limitles]

There is no way you can say drugs are bad....blanket statement, because who knows what these people would have done with or without.

I'm more or less with you until this line. For every Cobain and Hendrix there's a million others with their lives in shambles, sleeping in boxes. That shit is ugly. I really don't see how you can glorify it or try to argue that it improves society. I don't know if heroin helps artists write better songs, and I don't really care either.

I'm all for drug legalization, but for different reasons. Certainly not because I think it would be totally awesome if more entertainers were shooting up.

'

I'm not trying to glorify it at all. Time and again I hear detractors of artists who have succumbed to drugs labelled as simple junkies. Drugs are a reality. To denounce people because of their addiction to drugs or anything else is wrong. People who are straight seem to enjoy their moral superiority over anyone who has had a taste of
the illegal substance. Did these "drugs" cause anyone other than the first party any physical harm? Did these "drugs" cause hundreds of innocents to die? Obv. not

[limitles]

I'm more or less with you until this line. For every Cobain and Hendrix there's a million others with their lives in shambles, sleeping in boxes. That shit is ugly. I really don't see how you can glorify it or try to argue that it improves society. I don't know if heroin helps artists write better songs, and I don't really care either.

I'm all for drug legalization, but for different reasons. Certainly not because I think it would be totally awesome if more entertainers were shooting up.

Limitles is trying to defend his crippling alcohol addiction by implying that it's not a big deal. The difference is that those people were all hugely talented. Limitles is just a complete loser who lives in his mom's basement and drinks drugstore vodka all day.

Sorry Barry but I have no crippling alcohol addiction. More importantly I'm simply saying that there is a pattern of addiction and artistry. There is a lot of evidence to support this. Are these people bad, are they hurtful to their community? In most cases no. These are not the people to worry about. They are not your next Waco wackos.
I actually find the whole topic fascinating. The fact that so many "stars" are destined for a short lifetime is interesting.

[Corrigan]

I'm more or less with you until this line. For every Cobain and Hendrix there's a million limitleses. .

FYP

[WillieMcFML]

There is no way you can say drugs are bad....blanket statement, because who knows what these people would have done with or without.

I'm more or less with you until this line. For every Cobain and Hendrix there's a million others with their lives in shambles, sleeping in boxes. That shit is ugly. I really don't see how you can glorify it or try to argue that it improves society. I don't know if heroin helps artists write better songs, and I don't really care either.

I'm all for drug legalization, but for different reasons. Certainly not because I think it would be totally awesome if more entertainers were shooting up.

you are arguing with someone who has a sig that reads "if you're not wasted, the day is"

it's his solution to everything

get fucked up, make an ass of yourself, and apologize in the morning

repeat x infinity

[limitles]

I'm more or less with you until this line. For every Cobain and Hendrix there's a million others with their lives in shambles, sleeping in boxes. That shit is ugly. I really don't see how you can glorify it or try to argue that it improves society. I don't know if heroin helps artists write better songs, and I don't really care either.

I'm all for drug legalization, but for different reasons. Certainly not because I think it would be totally awesome if more entertainers were shooting up.

you are arguing with someone who has a sig that reads "if you're not wasted, the day is"

it's his solution to everything

get fucked up, make an ass of yourself, and apologize in the morning

repeat x infinity

thanks for confirming your place in bookkeeperville.

You don't see anything funny in that sig? It's a joke you lying ignorant cheating prick.

I stole (you should relate) it off the Deaf Frat Guy because I thought it was funny.

I actually gave you more credit than the regulars here but I'm beginning to wonder.


p.s. I'm drunk every minute of every day......lol and I make 400K every day

tards

[WillieMcFML]

you are arguing with someone who has a sig that reads "if you're not wasted, the day is"

it's his solution to everything

get fucked up, make an ass of yourself, and apologize in the morning

repeat x infinity

thanks for confirming your place in bookkeeperville.

You don't see anything funny in that sig? It's a joke you lying ignorant cheating prick.

I stole (you should relate) it off the Deaf Frat Guy because I thought it was funny.

I actually gave you more credit than the regulars here but I'm beginning to wonder.

a page before i was the anti-christ

[limitles]

thanks for confirming your place in bookkeeperville.

You don't see anything funny in that sig? It's a joke you lying ignorant cheating prick.

I stole (you should relate) it off the Deaf Frat Guy because I thought it was funny.

I actually gave you more credit than the regulars here but I'm beginning to wonder.

a page before i was the anti-christ

You got my thoughts on you the other night. You notice I was not apologizing to you today. Why, because everything I said I

believed. You are nothing special and you are most likely a creep.

[BCR]

Calling Weiland a junkie isn't pejorative, it's accurate. You know drugs. They become less effective progressively quick, while requiring higher dosages to get any effect. If artists could achieve the same level of mastery, while staying on a relatively maintenance level of drugs, it would be great, but it doesn't work that way for anyone.

I wouldn't argue that drugs didn't play a part in the level of genius those artists got to, but it wouldn't have been sustainable. Their deaths suggest they knew they had to continually push the envelope to stay at that level, but your body isn't having it. (Cobain being the exception, but the result would have likely been the same)

From the first writers dabbling in opium back in the 1800's, the work does get better and open doors that may not have otherwise been opened, but they aren't long for this world if they continue to push their usage to achieve the same result.

When they do live, they never usually can replicate anything near as good as they did young, because the maintenance level required doesn't even allow one to be reliable to show up for a gig, let alone produce an entire work of art. You know this Les.

I like drugs, and I'd love if what was sufficient on my first use always gave me the same effect, but it doesn't. The artists that live usually produce average shit relative to their earlier years because they are sloppy and unfocused. The ones that get sober generally are a level below what they once were, with a very few exceptions. It's simply impossible to use for a long period of time and not get sloppy. Weiland is sloppy and undependable at this point. He may have a day where it all comes together and is simply perfect, but there will be many more nights when he's dopesick in the bathroom and comes out and puts on a bad show with a cold sweat running down the back of his neck.

I wish it didn't work that way, but it does.

[limitles]

Calling Weiland a junkie isn't pejorative, it's accurate. You know drugs. They become less effective progressively quick, while requiring higher dosages to get any effect. If artists could achieve the same level of mastery, while staying on a relatively maintenance level of drugs, it would be great, but it doesn't work that way for anyone.

I wouldn't argue that drugs didn't play a part in the level of genius those artists got to, but it wouldn't have been sustainable. Their deaths suggest they knew they had to continually push the envelope to stay at that level, but your body isn't having it. (Cobain being the exception, but the result would have likely been the same)

From the first writers dabbling in opium back in the 1800's, the work does get better and open doors that may not have otherwise been opened, but they aren't long for this world if they continue to push their usage to achieve the same result.

When they do live, they never usually can replicate anything near as good as they did young, because the maintenance level required doesn't even allow one to be reliable to show up for a gig, let alone produce an entire work of art. You know this Les.

I like drugs, and I'd love if what was sufficient on my first use always gave me the same effect, but it doesn't. The artists that live usually produce average shit relative to their earlier years because they are sloppy and unfocused. The ones that get sober generally are a level below what they once were, with a very few exceptions. It's simply impossible to use for a long period of time and not get sloppy. Weiland is sloppy and undependable at this point. He may have a day where it all comes together and is simply perfect, but there will be many more nights when he's dopesick in the bathroom and comes out and puts on a bad show with a cold sweat running down the back of his neck.

I wish it didn't work that way, but it does.

Hold on there Tonto, I am not suggesting for a moment that drugs were the reason these people were successful. The artist is a phenomenon that makes up a small percentage of the general population. The fact that some people are more susceptible to the influences of drugs is a known. It also seems to be that many artists have this affinity to said drugs. There is a fair amount of evidence that a number of popular entertainers have met an early demise due to this affinity to a drug/
"higher" consciousness.

I'm only against people who label guys like Cobain or Weiland as a useless junkie. In one breath they hail the brillance and the next they denounce that person as a failure.

[Corrigan]

Calling Weiland a junkie isn't pejorative, it's accurate. You know drugs. They become less effective progressively quick, while requiring higher dosages to get any effect. If artists could achieve the same level of mastery, while staying on a relatively maintenance level of drugs, it would be great, but it doesn't work that way for anyone.

I wouldn't argue that drugs didn't play a part in the level of genius those artists got to, but it wouldn't have been sustainable. Their deaths suggest they knew they had to continually push the envelope to stay at that level, but your body isn't having it. (Cobain being the exception, but the result would have likely been the same)

From the first writers dabbling in opium back in the 1800's, the work does get better and open doors that may not have otherwise been opened, but they aren't long for this world if they continue to push their usage to achieve the same result.

When they do live, they never usually can replicate anything near as good as they did young, because the maintenance level required doesn't even allow one to be reliable to show up for a gig, let alone produce an entire work of art. You know this Les.

I like drugs, and I'd love if what was sufficient on my first use always gave me the same effect, but it doesn't. The artists that live usually produce average shit relative to their earlier years because they are sloppy and unfocused. The ones that get sober generally are a level below what they once were, with a very few exceptions. It's simply impossible to use for a long period of time and not get sloppy. Weiland is sloppy and undependable at this point. He may have a day where it all comes together and is simply perfect, but there will be many more nights when he's dopesick in the bathroom and comes out and puts on a bad show with a cold sweat running down the back of his neck.

I wish it didn't work that way, but it does.

really great post

One of my favorite drug books is Confessions of an English opium Eater by Thomas De Quincey. Early 19th century guy who started out taking opium like a pothead (getting stoned and going to the opera, etc) but gradually descends into a sort of madness. His writing style is also amazing if you can stomach baroque old-timey writing

[BCR]

Certainly all of them were already supremely talented, but drugs played a part in their genius I think. For some it may have been a help to compose what they wrote, or for a guy like Cobain who was notoriously shy, it just gave him the ability to get on stage as he was uncomfortable in his own skin by all accounts of those that knew him.

None of them were worthless.

They achieved incredible things before 30 that no one here will. Had they lived, I'm not sure they get better artistically, that's not the usual trajectory. I'm glad they produced what they did while here. Drugs are bad if you want to someday play with your grandkids. They aren't bad for artists, but that time at the very pinnacle will be short lived in most circumstances. Either way, most of us are forgot pretty quickly after death, those people aren't. However; if you're not a musical genius already, the upside to drug use is usually just a sad broken life that leaves a wake of people who would have been better off if they never met you.

[SrslySirius]

However; if you're not a musical genius already, the upside to drug use is usually just a sad broken life that leaves a wake of people who would have been better off if they never met you.

Even if you are a musical genius, this still applies. Making it big requires a lot of luck.

I would also estimate that the world has more healthy talented artists than drug addicted ones.

[BCR]

However; if you're not a musical genius already, the upside to drug use is usually just a sad broken life that leaves a wake of people who would have been better off if they never met you.

Even if you are a musical genius, this still applies. Making it big requires a lot of luck. I meant if you die young Eventually all leave a wake of pain.

I would also estimate that the world has more healthy talented artists than drug addicted ones.

I see very little genius presently in popular culture, so I don't know about your last statement. That's subjective, and what you find genius will be different than me, but most living geniuses that i can think of are generally routinely in an altered state. I'm talking genius. Healthy and talented is kind of generic. The girl singing backup in some Broadway show is more talented than almost every girl on the charts, and less likely to be a fiend, but I am talking the ones that have IT, whatever IT is comprised of that makes people notice you in a sea of talented artists.