The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
classic albums made with drugs Modulation Plugins
Old 9th February 2014
  #421
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

drpeacock has some imaginary fantasy perception of how much marijuana most responsible adults might actually smoke at any given time.

Reading through his commentary, it sounds like he thinks even if you have small traces of THC in your bloodstream that you must still be stoned or somehow impaired.

There is such a thing as moderation.

There is such a thing as safe, rational, responsible, use.

On the rare occasion I go out, I drink iced tea, coffee, fruit juice or straight
club soda. I am always in control. Too many people depend on me.

I have gotten behind the wheel exactly once and only once when I should have stayed put and I have never again allowed myself to be put in that situation again. I was 17 years old and was fortunate to learn my lesson without ending up in the C&O Canal, the Potomac River or hurting someone else.

I mean it's not like I'm driving down the road in a VW Beatle with a hookah
built into the dashboard, like some friends of mine did.
Old 9th February 2014
  #422
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
That's why you lose all credibility, you say you don't think pot is bad, but then this shows what you are really thinking.
Please. How old are you? Obviously it was a joke borne of my exasperation with a guy who repeatedly claims something that isn't true despite me making several posts that should have disabused him of the notion that I have no experience on this matter.

Quote:
That wouldn't be some of that anecdotal evidence that you so vehemently lambaste, would it?
I didn't offer any anecdotal evidence at all. I didn't say, "I know that smoking pot impairs people's ability to operate a motor vehicle because I've done it and it did impair my ability." Every argument I have made has appealed to what we do know about the effects of pot extrapolated to driving, plus what credible medical organizations say about it. Me saying I had driven stoned was simply a response to the idiotic "criticism" that I am inherently wrong because I'm not a pothead, not actually attempting to make an argument based on such an idiotic foundation.

Quote:
The evidence is just not there, and until it is, we are all speculating.
There is evidence. It's not conclusive (which, if you look back, you'll see that I admitted that very early on), but what is known points to a conclusion that your ability to drive is going to be impaired. The opposite conclusion would be surprising. Therefore, until such surprising conclusions are proven by evidence, driving stoned is assumed to be reckless and is, and should be, illegal.

Quote:
Driving is one of those things that people take HUGE risks on, it is the most dangerous thing we do every day. And there are many, many things that they could so to make it more safer, like installing a breathalyzer on every car, lowering the speed limit, making it illegal to pass on the highway, requiring larger safer cars, making mandatory 20 year sentences for drunk driving etc. that would make it much safer to drive than outlawing stoned driving.
Just how many red herrings can you guys come up with anyway? Why do you refuse to admit that anything else that could be done to make driving safer has nothing to do with making it safer by expecting people to drive sober?

It comes down to this: Pause for a moment and let's take a look at your first sentence in that paragraph again: "Driving is one of those things that people take HUGE risks on, it is the most dangerous thing we do every day."

Now, honestly choose the best follow-up sentence from the two below:

1. "Since driving is so inherently dangerous, it makes sense to do so clear-headed and sober, reducing as many distractions and impairments as reasonably possible."

2. "However, a mood altering substance that is known to decrease reaction time, reduce a subject's ability to switch focus easily and quickly, and alter perception is just fine to partake of before engaging in this most dangerous and risky of tasks."

If you choose number two, you are an idiot. Keep in mind, number two is exactly what you guys are arguing for. I haven't distorted your claim. I'm arguing for number one, BTW.

Quote:
So even if you have a valid point, it is moot.
Since driving under the influence is illegal in the U.S. and everywhere else I am aware of, I would say that even if YOU have a valid point, it is moot...wouldn't you agree?
Old 9th February 2014
  #423
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
That's why you lose all credibility, you say you don't think pot is bad, but then this shows what you are really thinking.
Please. How old are you? Obviously it was a joke borne of my exasperation with a guy who repeatedly claims something that isn't true despite me making several posts that should have disabused him of the notion that I have no experience on this matter.

Plus, you guys have got to make up your mind. I have no credibility because I'm not a pothead. Then when I reveal that I have used pot, even used it while driving, I have no credibility because I am a hypocrite. Now I have no credibility because I told Cheech to put his bong down as a sarcastic jibe.

You know who has no credibility? The guy who can't deal with the arguments, so they just take potshots at the opponent. It's a dead giveaway that you have no substantive rebuttal.

Quote:
That wouldn't be some of that anecdotal evidence that you so vehemently lambaste, would it?
I didn't offer any anecdotal evidence at all. I didn't say, "I know that smoking pot impairs people's ability to operate a motor vehicle because I've done it and it did impair my ability." Every argument I have made has appealed to what we do know about the effects of pot extrapolated to driving, plus what credible medical organizations say about it. Me saying I had driven stoned was simply a response to the idiotic "criticism" that I am inherently wrong because I'm not a pothead, not actually attempting to make an argument based on such an idiotic foundation.

Quote:
The evidence is just not there, and until it is, we are all speculating.
There is evidence. It's not conclusive (which, if you look back, you'll see that I admitted that very early on), but what is known points to a conclusion that your ability to drive is going to be impaired. The opposite conclusion would be surprising. Therefore, until such surprising conclusions are proven by evidence, driving stoned is assumed to be reckless and is, and should be, illegal.

Quote:
Driving is one of those things that people take HUGE risks on, it is the most dangerous thing we do every day. And there are many, many things that they could so to make it more safer, like installing a breathalyzer on every car, lowering the speed limit, making it illegal to pass on the highway, requiring larger safer cars, making mandatory 20 year sentences for drunk driving etc. that would make it much safer to drive than outlawing stoned driving.
Just how many red herrings can you guys come up with anyway? Why do you refuse to admit that anything else that could be done to make driving safer has nothing to do with making it safer by expecting people to drive sober?

It comes down to this: Pause for a moment and let's take a look at your first sentence in that paragraph again: "Driving is one of those things that people take HUGE risks on, it is the most dangerous thing we do every day."

Now, honestly choose the best follow-up sentence from the two below:

1. "Since driving is so inherently dangerous, it makes sense to do so clear-headed and sober, reducing as many distractions and impairments as reasonably possible."

2. "However, a mood altering substance that is known to decrease reaction time, reduce a subject's ability to switch focus easily and quickly, and alter perception is just fine to partake of before engaging in this most dangerous and risky of tasks."

If you choose number two, you are an idiot. Keep in mind, number two is exactly what you guys are arguing for. I haven't distorted your claim. I'm arguing for number one, BTW.

Quote:
So even if you have a valid point, it is moot.
Since driving under the influence is illegal in the U.S. and everywhere else I am aware of, I would say that even if YOU have a valid point, it is moot...wouldn't you agree?
Old 9th February 2014
  #424
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
drpeacock has some imaginary fantasy perception of how much marijuana most responsible adults might actually smoke at any given time.

Reading through his commentary, it sounds like he thinks even if you have small traces of THC in your bloodstream that you must still be stoned or somehow impaired.
When did I say that or anything like it?

Listen Cheech, the Straw Man act is very old already. This is probably the 5th or 6th thing you've claimed I have said that I have not.

Either quote me on these sorts of claims or just be quiet and let the adults talk.
Old 9th February 2014
  #425
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
Listen Cheech,
Another "exasperated joke?". Talk about reactionary.
Old 9th February 2014
  #426
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
When did I say that or anything like it?

Listen Cheech, the Straw Man act is very old already. This is probably the 5th or 6th thing you've claimed I have said that I have not.

Either quote me on these sorts of claims or just be quiet and let the adults talk.
Fortunately most grown ups who have attended university know that you have no freeking idea what you are talking about.

You continue to quote some BS anti-drug propaganda based on lies and dirty money.

As one of the adults in the room who was smart enough to retire with a pension
and a spotless safety record at age 59, I actually do know what I'm talking about.

In my line of work this is what can happen if you make even the smallest mistake.

Old 9th February 2014
  #427
Sometimes it's hard to tell who's smoked pot or not based on the fallacy that pot makes a person 'stupid'; IMO the number of people who haven't who should vastly outnumbers the number who have but shouldn't.

I watched a Pink Floyd documentary last night and they looked very stoned especially the drummer. Great music. They hit a common denominator that so many people could/can relate to. Like Bob Marley. Pot is medicine for humanity.
Old 9th February 2014
  #428
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Sometimes it's hard to tell who's smoked pot or not based on the fallacy that pot makes a person 'stupid'; IMO the number of people who haven't who should vastly outnumbers the number who have but shouldn't.
Indeed.

Unfortunately amongst the ones that do smoke, stupid people tend to smoke the type of pot that indeed makes them even more stupid as opposed to the lucid stuff, which doesn't help either. Pot isn't pot. Like necking Absynth isn't the same as having a glas of white wine.
Old 9th February 2014
  #429
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
The first time I listened to TOMMY I was tripping on acid. Good acid. It was the late 60's.

I swore that THE WHO were on acid and TOMMY was intended for people tripping.

I am sure nothing could be further from the truth.

I think it may be what ever drug one is high on when they listen to any particular music that determines the impression that the production was drug oriented and which drug was used during the creation of the project.

I don't even want to get in to MEDDLE !!
Old 9th February 2014
  #430
Yeah - good points both. Some of the best psychedelic music I've heard was made by 'straight people' - drugs probably would've ruined that vibe.
Old 9th February 2014
  #431
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Yeah - good points both. Some of the best psychedelic music I've heard was made by 'straight people' - drugs probably would've ruined that vibe.
Not true, i have heard lots of psychedelic gay music.
Old 9th February 2014
  #432
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Yeah - good points both. Some of the best psychedelic music I've heard was made by 'straight people' - drugs probably would've ruined that vibe.
Yep, The Who were very straight people in the day, particularly that guy Keith......
Old 9th February 2014
  #433
Keith Harris & Orville?
Old 9th February 2014
  #434
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Yep, The Who were very straight people in the day, particularly that guy Keith......
As was Freddie Mercury.
Old 9th February 2014
  #435
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
As was Freddie Mercury.
Yep, Freddie and drugs? Naaaaaaahhh.......
Old 9th February 2014
  #436
For some that regularly used drugs it would have been difficult to work without them. However, how much they used, when, what time of day, how much sleep they had, how long they had to make the recording, how complicated the parts where, whether things were later edited together by someone with a clearer head, etc. There are any number of factors that surround the use of drugs. Essentially, for musicians that must be on when the time comes, it allows a certain degree of control over the way they feel so they can perform when necessary. For instance, rolling into town after driving all night catching a few hours and then getting ready to hit. A little dope will help that along quite nicely however, too much and you nod out and screw up.

It all depends....
Old 9th February 2014
  #437
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Yep, Freddie and drugs? Naaaaaaahhh.......
I was saying he is not straight.
Old 9th February 2014
  #438
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
I was saying he is not straight.
Really?

I think the previous reference to the word straight meant 'not into the idea of taking drugs' type of straight...and I thought you were taking the mick, bringing sexuality into it....
Old 9th February 2014
  #439
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Really?

I think the previous reference to the word straight meant 'not into the idea of taking drugs' type of straight...and I thought you were taking the mick, bringing sexuality into it....
i have no idea what "taking the mick" means
Old 9th February 2014
  #440
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTT View Post
Fortunately most grown ups who have attended university know that you have no freeking idea what you are talking about.

You continue to quote some BS anti-drug propaganda based on lies and dirty money.

As one of the adults in the room who was smart enough to retire with a pension
and a spotless safety record at age 59, I actually do know what I'm talking about.

In my line of work this is what can happen if you make even the smallest mistake.

I know this, and the thread record will show it to be true: you can't mount a reasonable argument for people driving stoned. It's why you have erected at least half a dozen straw men in my honor, claiming I have said things I have not, most recently claiming I "continue to quote some BS anti-drug propaganda," when you'd have to go back several pages to find any research I quoted.

But that's fine. The record is there, as you have said, the adults on the thread can figure out who is reasonable and who is not.

There's no way that I can argue with someone who deems themselves the only legitimate authority on an issue, and who habitually claims I have argued points that I haven't argued.

So I will leave you with a famous quote popularized by George Bernard Shaw: “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it.”

I may be a slower learner than George, but eventually I do come around. Enjoy your mud; I'm out.
Old 9th February 2014
  #441
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
you can't mount a reasonable argument for people driving stoned. ..
Quote:
An amazing study authored by professors D. Mark Anderson from the University of Montana and Daniel Rees from the University of Colorado shows that traffic deaths have been reduced in states where medical marijuana is legalized...

Based on their findings, traffic related fatalities that have been caused by the use of medical marijuana dropped by almost nine percent-in states that have legalized medical marijuana...Source: Reasons Why Marijuana Users Are Safe Drivers | Compare Auto Insurance Quotes At 01autoinsurance.com
Now back to albums made under the influence: I'd like to nominate CB200 by Dillinger & International Herb by Culture as 2 fine examples of herb-assisted reggae.
Old 10th February 2014
  #442
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

Oh probably!

Old 10th February 2014
  #443
Here for the gear
 
TheBeatMan.net's Avatar
 

I do agree about artist being high. I think it's in movies also. I also think some of Richard pryor best stuff he was high on something. Lol

Last edited by TheBeatMan.net; 10th February 2014 at 12:48 AM.. Reason: add
Old 10th February 2014
  #444
Lives for gear
Medeski Martin and Wood "The Dropper" is a great album made on drugs. With song names like "philly cheese blunt" and "we are rolling" you can tell they partook heavily on that album.
Old 10th February 2014
  #445
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

Now it's for sure, GS is headed for destruction with a thread on drugs, years ago I got a warning for posting a R rated porn link. Things have lightened up for sure. I would want to think women would be better than drugs.
Old 10th February 2014
  #446
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Maybe it's easier to list classic albums not made on drugs. I think it's the null set!
Old 10th February 2014
  #447
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllAboutTone View Post
Now it's for sure, GS is headed for destruction with a thread on drugs, years ago I got a warning for posting a R rated porn link. Things have lightened up for sure. I would want to think women would be better than drugs.
Why would GS have an issue with a simple discussion when the subject of Marijuana legalization is all over nearly every news publication?

No one here is suggesting other far more dangerous substances should be deregulated.

I think it is only a matter of time now for more states and municipalities to
change their policies when they see they can generate far more revenue through
responsible legal use than all the money they earned previously attempting to
enforce prohibition.
Old 10th February 2014
  #448
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Now back to albums made under the influence: I'd like to nominate CB200 by Dillinger & International Herb by Culture as 2 fine examples of herb-assisted reggae.
1. I didn't say no one could mount a reasonable argument. I said the poster to whom I was responding couldn't. I base this on the fact that he hasn't yet despite pages of posts. I guess he could be just saving the real argument for later, but I doubt it.

2. The study you cited has not been peer-reviewed. That doesn't mean that it's invalid, but it does mean that we won't know whether it is or not until it is peer-reviewed.

3. The poster to whom I was directing my comments will not post studies. Know why? Because I've been posting peer-reviewed studies from legitimate scientific/medical sources that indicate that driving stoned is impaired driving. His rebuttal to that is that those are BS studies. It's hard to argue that fringe, non-peer reviewed studies are valid, but the real thing is bogus.
Old 10th February 2014
  #449
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

There are times in the creative process where it may be beneficial to allow the mind to wander and other times where you must focus on tedious, fine detailed precision for hours on end.

Different people go about achieving those goals in their own way, some tragically some with great success.
Old 19th March 2014
  #450
Gear Maniac
 

'Classic albums / music etc made with drugs'

This is a classic example of a logical fallacy which we as humans are prone to!

'Correlation does not imply causation'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation

If drugs & drink spur creativity why don't we see people on Skid Row blowing horns like 'Bird' and churning out manuscripts like Kerouac & Burroughs as a result?

On 'Bird' - imagine how Charlie Parker might have played & seen his career develop had he not had such debilitating addiction problems?

In my own experience of witnessing the result of musicians kicking substance addictions - in all cases without fail there was immediate noticeable improvement in people's playing, not to mention in their personal / family life and career prospects (improved reliability) ...

One substance I have seen have actually work as a studio 'performance enhancer' for some people, in some cases, is caffeine in the form of coffee...
Top Mentioned Products
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Wiggy Neve Slut / So much gear, so little time
34
jammybastard / So much gear, so little time
102
eligit / So much gear, so little time
24

Forum Jump
Forum Jump