Electrolicious

12 Responses to “Celebratory Careers”

1. Broch
   May 29th, 2003 at 7:42 pm

   

   I would have to say that it depends on ones own view of what is glamorous. Looking back to the day when Vitamin-E was not scheduled, and glowsticks were still cool, I had no issue with my life. Looking back on it as a thirty-something, I know how lucky I am to still be alive.

2. Steve Hecht
   May 29th, 2003 at 8:39 pm

   

   “celebratory career”…amusing choice of words, given that “career” is also a verb that means “To move or run at full speed; rush” (dictionary.com)

3. Brodie
   May 30th, 2003 at 8:45 am

   

   Well, as a working educator, I would have to say your justification turns my stomach. I too had a celebratory career to some extent, but I tell you, lets not empower young people to do such things. They are motivated enough already. But to say, “no harm, no foul” is just ignorance if you don’t mind my saying so. Assuming there is no harm in fact, how can you be certain a greater potential in life wouldn’t be reached if they weren’t baked every weekend. Simply put, when you spend a fair portion of your days stoned, you are not living up to your potential. Let’s encourage kids to live and live fully. Not avoiding life in drug use.

4. nikki
   May 30th, 2003 at 9:56 am

   

   I’m going to have to go witha simple formula. If your substance abuse is causing problems or consequences in your life, you have vaulted over the line. Now you just have to define problems and consequences. There’s a huge grey area between “not living up to your potential” and ODing and DWI’s. Therein lies your subjective career.

5. *b.
   May 30th, 2003 at 10:56 am

   

   I used the same definition that you did, Ariel. Although I cringed when I found out that little brothers and sisters were starting to go out and get loaded at the same age I started. I worry more about the long-term effects for them (like some pseudo-adult that thinks they haven’t been warned), but people will do what people will do.

6. eric
   May 30th, 2003 at 11:40 am

   

   If you’re happy sober and happy unsober, I’d say you’ve got a pretty good handle on things.

7. leblanc
   May 30th, 2003 at 11:45 am

   

   it’s a tough call. there are a LOT of cocaine and alcohol (and varios other drug) addicts out there who function at quite a high level on a daily basis while still getting loaded all the time. presidents of companies, top execs, harvard professors, you name it. i do not think that your level of performance - at work or in school - should be an indicator of whether you have a drug problem or not. honestly. sure, eventually most cokeheads or alcoholics slip WAY over the line and it becomes evident, but quite often it’s only after years - literally sometimes decades - of day to day abuse.

   sorry to sound like a rehab clinic, but you asked.

8. mimi smartypants
   May 30th, 2003 at 12:02 pm

   

   I’m pretty much with you. I not only kept my grades up in college while slipping over to the celebratory side often, I learned a lot and completely “worked up to my potential” (whatever that means, and I just gagged slightly while typing it). And while these days I am more about cocktails than acid, those too are quite simply something I enjoy: not a crutch, not a tool, not an escape, not something stopping me from living my life. Period. The New Puritanism really bothers me deep in my soul. (ooh. is Mimi cranky?)

   no.

9. brodie
   May 30th, 2003 at 1:12 pm

   

   Would it be enough to point out that if you have not been deeply involved in lower socio-economic families and seen what drug abuse does to people, even on this so-called ‘casual’ level , that your opinion of true drug-culture might not be fully formed?
   It is one thing to be an entitled middle class kid living in the throws of an angsty youth, but it is another thing entirley to be living in a shell of a family because one of your parents got an early start on the crank this morning. There is a differnce, indeed! However phrases like “if they can keep their grades up while getting loaded on the weekend … more power to ‘em! They’re extra smart!” are just ignorant. They aren’t extra smart, they are taking extra risks with long reaching reprocussions. How can you know you will get an end run around some very hard statistics?

   Referring to a someone as a “New Puritan” is a bit pergorative isn’t it? I mean after all, I TEACH YOUR CHILDREN. Pragmatic, yes, puritanical, no.

10. Ariel
    May 30th, 2003 at 2:52 pm

    

    Hmm. Interesting comments! Keep ‘em coming. Two offline theories from in-person conversations about this topic:

    Andreas’ theory was that if you’re learning, then it’s not pathetic. When you stop learning from your substances, it’s time to stop.

    Amanda’s theory was that it’s chemical and genetic. Some people have predispositions to addiction while others can function just fine.

    All very interesting. I’m appreciating everyone’s perspectives, even when the perspectives clash.

11. donut
    May 30th, 2003 at 9:05 pm

    

    I understand where you are coming from, but I make it a habit not to judge other people’s drug use. I don’t want anyone telling me what to put in my body, so I’ll grant everyone that same degree of respect.

    I find few things more patronizing than people who say, “I can handle this drug, but you can’t.”

12. kim
    June 3rd, 2003 at 3:36 pm

    

    i feel that grades are not indicative of being smart, together, or otherwise well-adjusted. in fact, i’d argue that in many cases the happiest & most well-adjusted people have horrific grades. the same thing goes for other ways in which our society deems someone to be successful and to have their shit together.