I know a couple MD/PhD students at a top medical school that do lines. One of them was able to bust out his PhD in 3 years, the other is top of his class in medical school. This pre-med elitism makes me sick. Judge less, snort more. J/M
Ah, the classic ubermensch rationale, a surprisingly fellatious argument from such a cunning linguist. I'm not exactly sure why the comment is in response to my comment, as I was simply answering a question (do you know any who has used cocaine) that someone asked me, not making a point.
But since you brought it up, I must point out that what we've got here is a failure to reason. Some people you just can't reach, so you get what you wrote here last week: a vacuous implication.
Your modus tollens in this case is: If people fail when using cocaine, then cocaine must be bad. Some people succeed when using cocaine. Therefore, cocaine is not bad.
Unfortunately, the implied premise in this case (If people fail when using cocaine, then cocaine must be bad) is wrong. It's a non sequitur, if you will. Whether or not cocaine is bad is independent of whether or not some people are able to use cocaine and still have 'success.'
Case in point: William Stewart Halsted. He developed his cocaine addiction innocently enough doing research on the drug as an anesthetic before much was known about it (a much more laudable purpose than the onanistic reasons of those mentioned above). Despite his addiction, he went on to become the greatest surgeon-scientist of all time, the inventor of plastic gloves for surgery and the originator of myriad landmark surgical techniques (both achievements that dwarf three-year PhDs and medical school test scores), not to mention his membership in the founding four of Johns Hopkins medical school. On the face of it, cocaine again seems to be not so bad if someone can have an addition (a more serious probably than 'doing lines' infrequently) and still achieve 'great things,' no? Except that Halsted's addiction altered his personality and drove him into an introverted existence--a consequence that many people would deem as 'bad.'
Thus the inaccuracy of your above premise.
That's really neither here nor there, though. What's really disturbing about your flippant comments is the exaltation of error simply because some people ostensibly get away with it. The implication that if some people can 'do lines,' as you so appropriately put it, and still do something you find praiseworthy like 'bust out' a PhD in three years or be at the top of a medical school class, then perhaps you can do the same thing.
Let's not justify vice because it doesn't always correlate with a deleterious outcome. After all, Roman Polanski likes to have sex with prepubescent girls, but he still manages to make damn good movies. OJ killed his wife ('If I did it'), but was a phenomenal football player. Clinton is a lecherous scumbag, but still had a successful presidency. And Pinochet killed thousands of people, and still pulled Chile out of an economic slump.
But that don't make it right.
Oh, and I'm not pre-med, I'm pre-dent. I just applied to med school to see if I could get in. So it's pre-dent elitism that sickens linguists as cunning as yourself.