Weird, the actual headline says "experiment" and the Fark headline says "abuse." Does subby not know those are two different things?

/smart
//perhaps experimented; never abused

As a Ph.D. grad, I can anecdotally confirm this. In higher education, it seemed most people I knew picked a poison of some kind to lay back and enjoy... though they were also very intimately aware of the method of action down to the molecular level and exceedingly cautious about dosage (science geeks, and all).

Strangely enough, most of the intelligent and reasonably wealthy (read: successful, as these were older folk who had pretty impressive careers going) people I knew also enjoyed cocaine a bit more than they probably should have. I always found that sort of interesting, and were I in the right social science, I may have wanted to investigate it.

Drugs are how I cope with having to share this space rock with the rest of you filthy stupid monkeys.

Smart people are generally curious people. And smart people often feel alone because of their inability to find others to communicate with. Experimenting with drugs is probably one way to relieve the everyday boredom and the sense of not fitting in. It's an escape.

GAT_00: the vast majority of the arguments for it are stoners

People != arguments

Are you sure you are smart? Or are you stoned?

Of course smart people abuse drugs. Look at all the shiat we have to put up with from idiots.

FTFA:
"Background Recent reports have linked high childhood IQ scores with excess alcohol intake and alcohol dependency in adult life, but the relationship with illegal drug use in later life is relatively unknown. "

Sounds like this study is less saying "smart kids are more adventurous and experimental" and more "persons with high IQs more frequently develop chemical dependencies later in life". More over, I fail to see how a study of English kids born during the 60s has anything to say about humanity in general at the turn of the century. And wouldn't someone 5 or 10 in 1970 be a boomer? Their gen was, among other things, really the first where drugs had a mass-market presence, so I'd be a bit queasy about applying lessons about their behavior regarding them to later gens for whom drugs were just something "out there" like alcohol.

That's just my opinion of course, but reading the abstract, there's something that bugs me about their methodology. They take into account social strata(though they don't state what rubric they are using for that in this summary), but they don't seem to take into account the "social position" of the drug use in question. What I mean by that is, marijuana is something everyone partakes of, cocaine and ecstasy are primarily middle and upper class drugs being both expensive and part of the club scene(and you've got to have money to get into the clubs), while meth and the various other amphetamine derivatives are definitively poor people's narcotics (hell, they're basically a step up from paint huffing). As a result, they aren't really testing how economic factors interplay with intelligence to affect drug habits in this study, making their claim that abuse was "independent from psychological distress in adolescence and life-course socioeconomic position" seem a little too broad to me. Is there more robust abuse among meth users (and hence the poorer cohort)? Are there more negative side-effects associated with meth use than cocaine? I would hope these questions would be dealt with in the study.

kxs401: Weird, the actual headline says "experiment" and the Fark headline says "abuse." Does subby not know those are two different things?

/smart
//perhaps experimented; never abused

The actually abstract (and hence, the study in question) is about addiction and abuse, however. Go read it at the bottom of the page.

Skail: As a Ph.D. grad, I can anecdotally confirm this. In higher education, it seemed most people I knew picked a poison of some kind to lay back and enjoy... though they were also very intimately aware of the method of action down to the molecular level and exceedingly cautious about dosage (science geeks, and all).

Strangely enough, most of the intelligent and reasonably wealthy (read: successful, as these were older folk who had pretty impressive careers going) people I knew also enjoyed cocaine a bit more than they probably should have. I always found that sort of interesting, and were I in the right social science, I may have wanted to investigate it.

I don't really think it's direct function of intelligence; rather, I think this is a side-effect of a certain personality aspect of intelligence causes. Basically, smart people are obsessives. That's how they remember every little thing about a subject, that's how they think out all the logical implications of a certain argument, that's why they feel the need to get anything they create "right"; because there is a compulsion inside them that makes them care about these things that other people don't possess. Lots of obsessive behaviors -self-mortification, hoarding, compulsion, teeth-grinding, sleeplessness, ect- have higher incidence among the high IQ cohort in a pop, and I don't find it particularly surprising that substance addiction, the most common and socially acceptable form of obsessive behavior, enjoys a similar position.

Heron:

I don't really think it's a direct function of intelligence; rather, I think this is a side-effect of a certain personality aspect of intelligence causescertain aspects of personality brought on by high intelligence.

Bah.

FTFM

It's because we're so stinking bored with the rest of you. Seriously, do or say something interesting. Amuse me.

Yeah, my experience agrees with this, too. Not necessarily illicit drugs, but the scientists and engineers that I know are the biggest drinkers that I know. Go to a chemistry conference, especially a smaller one (like a Gordon), and the quantity of booze is staggering. High quality booze, too. I've always attributed it to a desire to relax and let your brain slow down a little bit. Also, some of the best ideas happen between beers 4 and 6 and get written down on a soggy bar napkin.

Makh: Funny, the even smarter kids didn't drink, smoke or do any substance even if they agreed that it should be legal.

No, you're lying to yourself about your own intelligence. :(

GAT_00: Makh: Funny, the even smarter kids didn't drink, smoke or do any substance even if they agreed that it should be legal.

I don't smoke because it's stupid. I don't smoke the fun stuff because it's illegal. While I won't mind if it is legal, I've stopped saying it should be legal since the vast majority of the arguments for it are stoners who want to be legal. I did drink when I was 19 and 20, but I don't think that's an indication one way or another since it's got to be something near 90% of all people drink before 21.

And I'd argue I'm at least a little smart by my GRE scores.

You stopped saying cannabis should be legalized because of that?

Yet your claiming to be intelligent......

As one of the smarter kids, I dabbled in some drugs and other illegal activities - because I was bored with my classes and not getting properly challenged intellectually. Thank god somebody stepped in to help me before I ended up in jail or worse.

Makh: Funny, the even smarter kids didn't drink, smoke or do any substance even if they agreed that it should be legal.

I think this study is dead-nuts on.

I'm dumb as a stump and never abused or experimented with illicit drugs. Score one for the smart kids.

Trying to find something to stop the constant thinking without all the addiction. Not cool when you're trying to sleep or sex.

With one exception all of the smartest kids in my school ended up discovering drugs and or alcohol. The only difference in any of them was when. The very top of the pyramid almost all started using or drinking when they got to college. They were all at top tier schools and all discovered the people there weren't as intelligent as they expected and that much of the educational system was just a very bizarre game.

The only about whom I never heard a story of starting to drink or use drugs heavily was a second generation American whose father had emigrated from Bolivia of all places.

I was advanced for my peer group. I started very young.

Heron:
I don't really think it's direct function of intelligence; rather, I think this is a side-effect of a certain personality aspect of intelligence causes.

Agreed. I never thought intelligence was a cause of drug use, just that most of the intelligent people I've known have at least experimented with them..

needs 'obvious' tag.

Oh, a smart guy, eh?

That's what always gets me...

'This pretty white blonde girl is missing... She's a perfect angel and an honor student and never, ever, does anything wrong...'

2/3 or more of the 'honor students' I knew in high school were as likely to have a stash in their car and cheap booze under their bed.

Not surprising. As written by others a lot of the smarter folks to tend to dabble in upper end mind enhancements. You could always find the best drugs in the "smart" kids dorms. Some made it out others are still living in there parents basements.

needs 'obvious' tag.Rozotorical: Yet your claiming to be intelligent......

he *IS* claiming to be intelligent. he **IS** claiming to be intelligent.

Makh: Funny, the even smarter kids didn't drink, smoke or do any substance even if they agreed that it should be legal.

What did they do if they agreed it should be illegal?

I get what you're trying to say, but "agree with my ideals" is not the same as being smart. Neither is your hilarious fumble at logic.

As someone in all accelerated classes, I experimented with pot and booze like 90% of my peers. As an adult working a job that has no bearing on intelligence, I abuse pot and alcohol because I'm bored. When I was a nanny I didn't drink at all, and only smoked on my days off. It's all about what challenges you, and how much you can handle when you're being challenged.

Control your dosage, educate yourself, have fun. That's the extent of it. Man 2C-B was fun.

doglover: Makh: Funny, the even smarter kids didn't drink, smoke or do any substance even if they agreed that it should be legal.

False.

When you're actually smart you NEED drugs to deal with dumb people.

QFT.

FTFA:
While it's more than a little dubious testing the IQ of kids when they're 5- and 10-year olds,

Isn't that the only age group that IQ tests are appropriate for?

I'm experimenting with drugs AT THIS VERY MOMENT!!

well it's not much of an experiment, more like the 25,000th clinical trial of a 20-year case study

doglover: Makh: Funny, the even smarter kids didn't drink, smoke or do any substance even if they agreed that it should be legal.

False.

When you're actually smart you NEED drugs to deal with dumb people.

Why? This reality is too weird to start observing it through a perpetually altered state. After all, how do you truly know what's real and what's the figment of your own imagination? Well, unless you've got no imagination to begin with.

Besides, you can't mock mentally missing people messed up more then they are.

tenhigh: I'm experimenting with drugs AT THIS VERY MOMENT!!

well it's not much of an experiment, more like the 25,000th clinical trial of a 20-year case study

Do you need any volunteers?

Approves.

Every type of person smokes weed so using it in these studies is kind of pointless.

Use? Maybe. Abuse? Doubtful.