http://www.scribd.com/doc/91/It-seems-this-essay-was-written-while-the-guy-was-high-hilarious-#
Weed:
Caffeine:
What’s bad, now?
Seriously, though, this paper looks like a kid was just doing it as a joke.
someone post the Walt Whitman one, that thing gets me every time
also, as funny as this is, i feel it needs to be said that weed is a fucking disgusting drug, and its not really too good to make fun of it in this light. its incredibly dangerous, and a gateway to a failed life. :\
I love how the guy actually passed. =D
Haha. The teacher made spelling errors in her corrections and had bad hand writing. I can’t believe he still got a D. Goodness Gracious.
edit: The Walt Whitman thing is funny, too.
I like how the teacher almost totally ignores the content of the paper and takes off points for grammar, citations, and all the normal errors that would’ve been marked off with one of those magnum-sized red markers on any other paper. That was priceless. 
He knows the plot (even what Oedipus means), probably found it boring to write a normal paper.
We gave Lenny Kravitz to the world, ha!
I feel disappointed somehow. It isn’t interesting in the least. ;_;
Cro you’re like 3 years behind the rest of the internet.
Quoted for hilarity.
See, the weed web looks better, but it probably took the spider weeks to get around to making it. Whereas it made the caffeine web in fifteen minutes, along with another dozen webs it had to finish by the next morning.
Yeah, sorry, but i don’t see how drugs are “hilarity” :\
Unless you’re retarded about them, they’re fun.
All non-subjective parts of this are such bullshit:
Dangeous?
Ingesting too much marijuana may cause you to pass out.
Ingesting too much sugar may cause you to go into kidney failure.
The brownies are actually more dangerous than the pot in them, for the most part.
Gateway to a Failed Life?
40% of Americans aged 12 and over have admitted to using Marijuana. I very much doubt all, or even most, of their lives have failed. There are several defintions of failed, of course, but few of them could apply. Failure to reproduce by time of death is not only still open-ended for most users, it also doesn’t apply to that many; if it did, population would be decreasing, or increasing at a much slower rate than it is. Failure to live a “successful” or wealthy/prestigious life is discounted by the numbers among the rich and famous who have admitted smoking marijuana; musicians, corporate executives, United States Presidents, and other notable fuctions of “social glory” all have a fairly significant number of members who have at least tried the drug. America’s last two presidents both did (even if one, infamously, did not inhale), and many among the upcoming candidates used; powerful Democratic candidate Obama even admitted to using multiple times. As the first African American President of the Harvard Law Club, a Senator, and a candidate for the presidency, calling his life a failure is difficult. You may say that these are a few exceptions to the rules, but if you’ll note, the number of individuals, in general, on the level I’m citing is relatively small, so the small number of individuals I cite makes a fair percentage of them. Among those who simply have a job enough to provide for themselves and their dependants, the vast majority of said 40% would logically succeed at that, too, as the levels of people who cannot adequately complete that task numbers much smaller than 40% in America, and most of them mentally ill or otherwise homeless and simply incapable or unwilling to work, at which point, they probably aren’t smoking much pot, either.
Now, let’s go for a personal example, here:
I’ve done things I’m certain you’d frown on even moreso than this as “gateways to a failed life”, and have a 4.0 unweighted GPA, a 1560/1600, 23something/2400 on the SAT, 34/36 on the ACT, a 5 on every AP test I’ve taken. I’ve won poetry and prose prizes on a local and national level, and earned enough to pay for my entire education at some colleges (all the ones in my consortium a few low-cost ones for which I am not considered in-state) between scholarships, work, and royalties on my writing. I am being actively recruited by colleges with less than 15% selectivity rates; they are competing for me with financial aid packages. I’m fluent, or nearly so, in 4 languages. Finally, athletically, I have reached the highest level of mastery in Muay Boran and Krabi Krabong I can without training personally under the grandmaster in Thailand, or maybe Master Stephen, in Oregon, whom I have not met but have head high praises of.
Explain to me where, exactly, in that, I crossed through a “gateway to failure.” Please. Even if you assume I’m remembering my SAT scores incorrectly, as I may be, it still puts me well above the average high-school student. Hell, just assume a full 50% is bullshit and I still have achieved more than the average high school student.
What’s hilarious to Sorc and I, kaseli, is your judgementalism and ignorance to a large variety of facts on a subject. You only cited source seems to be under-informative, biased anti-marijuana commercials which are shown to be the pinnacle of intellect by making hyperbolic, unrelated similes between marijuana and running from junk-yard dogs. It was too high a condensation of cheap melodrama not be laughed at.
To be fair, the unprepared and inexperienced drug user is doomed. Plain and simple.
However, anybody with a brain has the sense enough not to blow down a few grams of cocaine and expect to do anything but bang your head against a wall and grind your teeth. Sure, that’s probably a little extreme.
Although perhaps not as formally accomplished as Arac, people have been calling me bright for years so I guess that counts for something. People respect me because I’m even headed, intelligent, soft spoken, articulate and quick witted. People enjoy my presence because I’m an absolute conundrum of gangster-sagging-my-pants-listens-to-rap-music/I-like-musicals-and-theater-etc spontanenousness that I’m… paradoxical o.O
Anywho, I’ve been both a casual and intense drug user. All you need is common sense and some self control and you won’t go wrong really. The effects of drugs physically subside in time (except for extacy which can sometimes leave holes in your brain forever or the LSD with remains in your spinal fluid for life. The former is obviously shitty while the latter is relatively unnoticeable).
I could go on about how life is about experiences and you haven’t really lived until you’ve put yourself in the position to experience it all or something like that but you won’t buy that because you’re still hooked on D.A.R.E. other similar 80’s terminology like “gateway drugs”.
The dangers of drugs won’t be truley unmasked for some time, just like how we keep finding out new things about things we already thought we knew everything about. Hell, one day they might find out THC makes great sunscreen. Who knows.
In the end, I’m not gonna fight you on this. Drugs are bad any way you look at it, but to contend that they’re ultimately going to ruin your life is based on your perception of what a ruined life consists of.
whoops, double post. Guess I’m stoned or something. omgz i failed at teh intarweb!
Keep in mind that only three of these people are actively involved in distinguished public work, and that those three long ago eliminated illegal drugs from their daily lives. Moreover, let’s take a closer look at those three.
Bill Clinton may be a genius and an extraordinarily active and accomplished man, but as far as we know, he really never inhaled. Even if he did, smoking weed once or twice in a lifetime, and then succeeding at life, hardly makes a case that marijuana has no negative effects.
As I understand it, George W. Bush partook more frequently. My question is, do we have any reason to believe that Bush is <i>smart</i>, or even particularly noteworthy as a personality? He mismanaged every business he was in charge of, and then mismanaged a nation. His life is defined by a tendency to treat things as simpler than they really are. If people argue that marijuana causes intellectual laziness, Bush hardly serves as a counterexample.
Finally, if I recall correctly, Barack Obama asserts that drug use messed up his life, and that he only got his life back on track because he stopped. I see no reason to doubt his assertion.
Now, I don’t believe moderate marijuana use has any catastrophic effects. However, a startling number of people in my classes have lamented that, due to frequent cold-calls in class and the need to keep up with homework, they’ll have to give up weed for the semester. That indicates something about <i>at least</i> the short-term effects of marijuana, and indirectly explains how it could lead to a “failed life.”
I’m pretty sure he didn’t cite anything
Everyone is different. Some people become addicts; some don’t. Those who are addicts certainly do ruin their lives, so to those who say that drugs ruining lives is a matter of personal perception, I suggest visiting the nearest rehab or psych ward.
If you do hard drugs, you run the risk of becoming an addict. Its ultimately a matter of personal brain chemistry, but do you really want to take the chance that you could have such brain chemistry?
As for pot, it can be bad. I’ve seen people in high school(who I used to hang out with) who would go to one person’s house, smoke weed, and lay on the couch for the rest of the day. Day after day. Weed can quietly sap your ambition. but, like I said, everyone has different brain chemistry. Weed isn’t that bad, since its not physically addictive. Alcohol is actually far worse at ruining your life than weed. Alcohol can lead to a ruined life(take it from me). But only a minority of people seem to ruin their lives with it. The percentage with weed is even smaller.
Hard drugs(cocaine, LSD, heroin, etc.) are an entirely different matter and I wouldn’t suggest doing any of them. Some people, like Sorcerer and Arac, can recreationally handle hard drugs. Many cannot. Do you really want to take the chance that you are one of the ones who can’t?
Yes, however, if using such a drug was a “gateway to failure,” as kaseli contends, they would not have achieved anything simply for having used the drug. My point was that he was too absolutist in generalizing everyone who has ever used marijuana in their life to the dumb stoner who sits on a couch and watches Half Baked over and over for twenty-four hours a day.
I’m pretty sure he later laughed about how fucking stupid “I didn’t inhale” was and admitted to doing it. I could be wrong, though. I don’t make the case it has no negative effects, I make the case it is not an automatic, definitive stamp of failue.
No, he does not. However, he does serve as a counter-example to the notion it leads one to being a failure, in one sense of the word. If public relevance, power, and wealth are to be used as measurements of success and failure (which is really quite an inane form of measurement, but the one I find those arguing drugs most often utilizing), one can hardly call a fairly wealthy (and not totally through inheritance) and extremely powerful (even if he doesn’t use it well, neither does anybody else with power, really).
He said cocaine messed up his life, and made light of the marijuana use, really, saying “that’s sorta the point” when asked if he inhaled. He states that he regrets it and doesn’t condone it or whatever, but the fact that he did it, even if he later quit, is still a hole in kaseli’s far-too-wide and generalizing assertion.
On the subject of why listening to politicians on drugs is somewhat flawed, every candidate, regardless of their belief, will say drugs are bad. The same way every candidate will say they dont “necessarily agree with” abortion, but don’t believe it’s the government’s business, if they’re pro life, or outright disagree with it. Politicans don’t have the balls, in all but a select few cases, to just go out there and say they don’t think there’s anything wrong with people using drugs or having abortions. Even the ones who support the legalization thereof have to maintain an aura of haughty disaste on the subject so they can maintain an appearance of “moral fiber” to attract inane “value voters.”
Yeah, it’s hard to concentrate on a lot of stuff while using drugs. This goes back to what Sorc said (quite eloquently, I might add) about not being stupid; taking LSD won’t necessarily hurt your ability to be successful at school/work/life in general. However, if you take it during those things, it almost certainly will be a hindrance to them. Like, say this paper was done on weed. This paper could’ve been done by a stoner very well, who then went off and smoked his pot. Smoking it before he did the paper is what made it stupid, and would make the paper bad.
Curtis: I disagree with the notion that addiction ruins lives, at least as an automatic assumption. I mean, in general, it’s a terrible, terrible thing, I just have a knee-jerk anti-generaliztion reflex.
Otherwise, I agree. It depends entirely on the person. Some people, whether they become addicts or not, can handle it, some can’t.
Cless: Yeah, I should have said “citable”, but that’s a really unappealing word combination. It should be an irregular adjective change, to make it more aesthetically pleasing.
Sorc: Just on the rap/musical paradox, the same thing happens to me, but with punk, too. I get really weird looks when people see playlist with the UK Subs or Sham 69, then a song from Evita, then a song by Tupac or De La Soul.