Originally Posted by
Ratman
The distinction between drug-fed creativity and retarded creativity comes from how self-assured drug-fed art is, which as it turns out is often enough to get it sold. What drugs do to you is make you confident that what you do under their influence is the coolest thing ever even long after you've sobered. Doesn't just apply to art, it applies to everything you do in the high. That's why cheap weed is good for society: it kills your productive drive, so overly self-assured druggie idiots don't go on producing while forgoing reflection forever, creating entire convoluted structures of their self-centered schizotypal autism, as they used to in the times of absinthe.
- - - Updated - - -
It's pretty easy to present the argument to any art student that takes any sort of narcotic that as long as they need the drug to create, they are fundamentally missing something in comparsion to the 30% of their classmates that aren't in fact taking any drugs, and come up with things while sober. Not that they're interested in hearing it, but at least weed filters most of them out. But I'm not sure I've encountered any type of person in my life that was as much of a nightmare to deal with as a bachelor of arts on meth.