Fun Stuff > BAND

drugs: visual art versus audible art

<< < (8/15) > >>

Lines:

--- Quote from: McTaggart ---I'm also an exception to iamyourpirates observation. The actually artistic subset of the people I know who dabble in the arts tend to be far on the cleaner side. The people who just draw pretty pictures and play their favourite bands' songs are more often the other sort.
--- End quote ---


mostly my observation was based off the i'm in an art school and just about everyone smokes. i mean, i know quite a few that don't, most of my friends don't, but most of them do or have and decided they hated it. it's just something i noticed. (this includes both professors and students.) but very very few of them do drugs, excluding alcohol (but that's probably just because it's college or something).

Cernunnos:
Oh man. Like more than half the students at my school smoke(tobacco, mostly). it's weird. like being in France or something. And the heacy alcohol use in art students is also a wide trend.
on another note, it's also interesting to discuss the different ways artists die infamously as opposed to musicians- drinking absinthe and shooting oneself(van G- i can't spell is name, i really should remember how to spell that; he's one of my favorites) in the gut, versus overdosing on numerous psychadelics and going out in a pool of one's own vomit(Hendrix?). Or, drunk driving accident (Jackson Pollock) versus, say, coke and a sawed off (Cobain). then there are the murders. i forget which minimalist it was who supposedly pushed his wife off of a balcony... Carl Andre, Maybe? also, my memory on the particulars of the deaths of famous musicians is vague. but really, the only distinguishing factor between the two groups here is the particular substances abused, not the peculiarity of the death. also, the level of exposure resulting. perhaps there isn't as large a dichotomy as i once thought there is.
sorry. i guess i needed to ramble incoherently. did any of that make sense?

McTaggart:
I think the alcoholism is a trend with any sort of students.

onewheelwizzard:

--- Quote from: Cernunnos ---... overdosing on numerous psychadelics and going out in a pool of one's own vomit(Hendrix?).
--- End quote ---


I think I should point out that not only was Hendrix using nothing but alcohol and stimulants the night of his death, but that it would be impossible to "overdose" on psychedelics in the first place.  It certainly is a bad idea to take more than a certain amount, but no psychedelic drug has physiological effects beyond their impact on your perception.  You need to take something along the lines of 10,000 hits of LSD in order for it to have toxic effects, and I'm not sure how many mushrooms it would take, but it's a hell of a lot.  It's virtually impossible to overdose (if "overdose" means taking enough to possibly be lethal) on any psychedelic drug without seriously trying to.

It's because of this and a wide variety of other reasons that I think the government's drug policy is downright laughable.  Both heroin and LSD are often pigeonholed as "hard drugs" ... it's inarguable that heroin qualifies, but LSD is virtually the opposite of heroin in every possible way.  How can it be categorized the same way, and more importantly, why are its users and purveyors punished the same way?

I won't even get into the marijuana-legalization debate, because it seems pretty clear that there shouldn't even be one.  Weed is less dangerous to society than alcohol in every way that matters, yet it's somehow causing a prison overflow (mainly of black men, as part of a wider racist attitude in the American criminal justice system).

Before I continue ranting I'll stop myself.  But I really find the idea of legislation of thought (which is basically what the "war on drugs" is about when it comes to hallucinogens, which are not inherently damaging drugs in the way hard drugs are) to be utterly repugnant.  I can't stand the fact that society simply doesn't accept someone who attempts to expand their experience with a psychedelic.  It seems completely counterintuitive to me the treat such a person as a criminal.

KharBevNor:
Weed is illegal not because of the damage it would do to society, but the damage it would do to the pockets of the american government and the tobacco and cotton industries. Cheap hemp and homegrown weed would be everywhere, and because you can't realistically tax weed in the same way as tobacco, they just don't want to know. And because the world traditionally follows Americas lead on the illegality of substances...

In my personal view anyway, the only drugs I'd probably ban are opiates. They're just...scary.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page