upinwath Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The OP must be a pot head to believe that crap. At least us smokers know that we are in good company! I see he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The difference is that torture and execution and poverty affect people en masse. Smoking weed only harms (if it does so) the individual. this argument that the drug only effects the user has been used by drug addicts to justify their consuption for decades. its probably the oldest argument for drugs there is. but anyone with a clear head can see the how this argument is totally wrong and short sighted. Plus, if he did smoke weed, then one can argue that the drug has made a contribution to the English language, English heritage and English theatre - which is a huge statement to make. im afraid not, you are making a huge assumption here which is totally unsubstantiated. the effects of cannabis are not permanent therefore you cannot claim they affected shakespeare's writings in anyway. if you need drugs to have a good time you need psychiatric help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 this argument that the drug only effects the user has been used by drug addicts to justify their consuption for decades. its probably the oldest argument for drugs there is. but anyone with a clear head can see the how this argument is totally wrong and short sighted. im afraid not, you are making a huge assumption here which is totally unsubstantiated. the effects of cannabis are not permanent therefore you cannot claim they affected shakespeare's writings in anyway. if you need drugs to have a good time you need psychiatric help. Unless he was writing permanently [or constantly, if that's what you meant], this makes no sense. He didn't claim that anyway, he said one could argue, so the second part of the sentence makes no sense either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 this argument that the drug only effects the user has been used by drug addicts to justify their consuption for decades. It's true, which gives it a certain value though. If a man puts a drug into his body it does only affect him. If he chooses to torture then it affects others. Your argument that drugs are morally equivalent to torture is puerile. but anyone with a clear head can see the how this argument is totally wrong and short sighted. Would you enlighten me? As for the third point. Experience influences the man, and the man makes the art, and the art influences the world. Thus, if Shakespeare did smoke weed, then weed has influenced the world (which it has anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Plus, if he did smoke weed, then one can argue that the drug has made a contribution to the English language, English heritage and English theatre - which is a huge statement to make. You could argue that, I suppose. It would be very silly, but you could still argue it if you wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Another pot head thread by the forums self confessed pot head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Experience influences the man, and the man makes the art, and the art influences the world. Thus, if Shakespeare did smoke weed, then weed has influenced the world (which it has anyway). I wouldn't go that far. Him smoking weed doesn't automatically mean that the weed had any influence on what he wrote. It would be like saying Shakespeare enjoyed eating jacket potatoes, therefore jacket potatoes influenced the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scabbydog Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 At least us smokers know that we are in good company! Indeed you are. He died aged 52. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 It would be like saying Shakespeare enjoyed eating jacket potatoes, therefore jacket potatoes influenced the world. It wouldn't be exactly the same. The logic would work, but the argument is different. Cannabis is an hallucinogen though, where a potato isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I just wanted to say jacket potato in a thread about Shakespeare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.