THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 19 Apr 2024, 11:52
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: drugs: visual art versus audible art  (Read 20703 times)

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #50 on: 10 Jun 2006, 04:35 »

I had some pretty sweet times stoned off my head last night, including some quite groovy minor visual hallucinations. At one point, I was just staring at this tower on the opposite shore of the Solent, and then it suddenly started walking towards me, like some sort of giant robot, its navigations lights swimming like arms.

Then I concentrated more, and saw that it was actually Keanu Reeves.

And then he started moonwalking across the skyline on top of an oil tanker.

Then I drank some more vodka. Drugs are fun.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Misereatur

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,839
  • Quicksand my butt
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #51 on: 10 Jun 2006, 06:57 »

Godamnit I wish I could sig' that.


And yeah, apart from cigarettes (I had never ever touched one, nor do I intend to*), I've never been offered drugs. Even when my friends smoked a joint next to me they kept it away.
Or maybe that was because I was 15, they were 17 and 18 and feeling over protective..?


*People actually dont believe me when I say I dont smoke. Fuckers.
Logged
FREE JAZZ ISN'T FREE!

I am a music republican.

brandie

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #52 on: 10 Jun 2006, 07:44 »

You all must've had crappy friends.  I bought my fair share of drugs, but I'd say I got even more for free.  Including my friend in high school whose parents had GARBAGE BAGS full of weed and would give me a handfull anytime I came over.
Logged

Misereatur

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,839
  • Quicksand my butt
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #53 on: 10 Jun 2006, 08:51 »

I seriously hope you asked his parents to adopt you.
Logged
FREE JAZZ ISN'T FREE!

I am a music republican.

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #54 on: 10 Jun 2006, 09:35 »

My folks bought me up all hippy. It ain't a joint if you're not sharing. Kids these days just have no goddamn manners.

On the subject of creativity and drugs, I dunno about anything else, but I can say that I definitely make better electronic music thanks to weed. When I started out, I used to do incredibly simplistic arrangements: drums and a couple of synth-lines, maybe a few samples. Then, I got high one time and some Neuroticfish came on my MP3, and I actually listened to it properly, picking up on all the subtle variations in the drums, the multi-layered synthlines, the oscillators and static clouds and half-buried samples driving it along, and realised why everyone elses electronic music was better than mine. I'd just been picking up on the basics, and thus creating a shallow imitation of music. I'm not sure, without weed, that I would have latched on so fast to that, and actually started employing more subtlety and depth.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

brandie

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #55 on: 10 Jun 2006, 12:20 »

Quote from: Misereatur
I seriously hope you asked his parents to adopt you.

:) Why buy the cow....
Logged

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,630
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #56 on: 10 Jun 2006, 13:09 »

Quote from: brandie
You all must've had crappy friends.  I bought my fair share of drugs, but I'd say I got even more for free.  Including my friend in high school whose parents had GARBAGE BAGS full of weed and would give me a handfull anytime I came over.


I haven't bought weed in ages, now I just get it for free, but I did have to buy my first. Not that it really mattered though, I don't know about any other countries, but weed is ridiculously cheap here. Buying $100 pesos (about $8.75 USD or 4.75 pounds) gets you enough for a small group for a few times.
Something which the teachers at my school (mostly british expats) are delighted to find out.
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #57 on: 11 Jun 2006, 23:34 »

I generally either buy weed in bulk off a mate, or just get it off my mum.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Phrozen

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #58 on: 13 Jun 2006, 02:27 »

Drugs are for beginners. Life is is scary/crazy/wierd/fun enough without them.

I also rarely like musicians that used drugs as part of their "creative" process.

But hey, that is my opinion.
Logged

Aneurhythmia

  • Obscure cultural reference
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #59 on: 13 Jun 2006, 02:47 »

Quote from: Phrozen
Drugs are for beginners. Life is is scary/crazy/wierd/fun enough without them.

Clarify how these two sentences don't contradict eachother.

Quote from: Phrozen
I also rarely like musicians that used drugs as part of their "creative" process.

But hey, that is my opinion.

I can't even imagine what you listen to.
Logged

Kai

  • ASDFSFAALYG8A@*& ^$%O
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,847
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #60 on: 13 Jun 2006, 05:33 »

Man, if I just stopped listening to artists who used drugs during that whole process, a good, probably, 98% of the bands I listen to are totally out.
Logged
but the music sucks because the keyboards don't have the cold/mechanical sound they had but a wannabe techno sound that it's pathetic for Rammstein standars.

Phrozen

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #61 on: 15 Jun 2006, 23:11 »

Quote from: Aneurhythmia
Clarify how these two sentences don't contradict eachother.


I'm not sure I understand where your confusion lies, perhas I'm just a bit dense...

"Drugs are for beginners" is something I used to say a lot. I have a lot of fun with life, Ive done a lot of strange things. Life is plenty wierd for me. So whe I say "Drugs are for beginners" I'm saying that if you need drugs to have fun or be creative, you're doing something wrong. *shrug* its a personal thing.

Quote

I can't even imagine what you listen to.


I should have put more emphasis on rarely...

Honestly, I'm sure a lot of the musicians I listen to have used drugs while writing their music. Honestly? I dont want to know about it, once I find out a band used drugs to "enhance" their creative abilities I lose a lot of respect for them. It just seems like cheating to me, as though they were incapable of writing good music without drugs, then I have to ask myself: "Was it the drugs or their actual skills?" Perhaps this comes from a lack of first hand experience, I've never taken any mind altering drugs and really don't intend on it(Barring, of course, alchohol, caffeiene and nicotene.).

Also, so many of these awesome artists who use illicit substances often end up dead because of them, and thats just un-fucking-forgiveable. I get so mad when I hear about some musician I loved or respected ended up OD'ing on some shit he shouldn't have been taking in the first place. I'll always hate that bastard Mitch Hedburg for OD'ing... God damnit it if he wasn't hilarious.

Sorry, this is all anecdotal and ultra-biased opinion, I recommend you take it at face value.
Logged

onewheelwizzard

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,558
  • Ha! Fool ...
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/onewheelwizzard
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #62 on: 16 Jun 2006, 13:29 »

Quote from: Phrozen

"Drugs are for beginners" is something I used to say a lot. I have a lot of fun with life, Ive done a lot of strange things. Life is plenty wierd for me. So whe I say "Drugs are for beginners" I'm saying that if you need drugs to have fun or be creative, you're doing something wrong. *shrug* its a personal thing.


I think you're missing a few very important points here.  While a great deal of anti-drug propaganda has given the majority of society a very skewed idea of what drugs do, the fact remains that anyone who can't be fun or creative without drugs will certainly offer only pale imitations of creativity with them.  Drugs are best, in fact, for people like you, people who have fun with life and do strange things and feel good about the interesting things in the world.  All they do is open more interesting and weird and creative things up, and someone with musical skill will only benefit from this expanded perspective if they already know how to channel their inherent creative talent into an expression of their drug-enhanced experience.  To say that drawing from drug experiences to make better music is cheating is a bit like saying it's cheating to write a song about a breakup when you haven't actually broken up with anyone, or when you've watched your friend break up with their S/O but you remain with your own.  It's still creative expression that comes from the artist and the artist's ideas.

Quote
Honestly, I'm sure a lot of the musicians I listen to have used drugs while writing their music. Honestly? I dont want to know about it, once I find out a band used drugs to "enhance" their creative abilities I lose a lot of respect for them. It just seems like cheating to me, as though they were incapable of writing good music without drugs, then I have to ask myself: "Was it the drugs or their actual skills?" Perhaps this comes from a lack of first hand experience, I've never taken any mind altering drugs and really don't intend on it(Barring, of course, alchohol, caffeiene and nicotene.).


First of all, I don't want to sound hostile because I realize that these remarks are coming from someone who does not, in fact, understand the nature of drug use and therefore doesn't know any better, but really, who are you to assume that using drugs to enhance creative expression is in any way indicative of an inability to express the same creativity without drugs?  THe Beatles were amazing songwriters when they had never taken a hit of marijuana, and they remained amazing songwriters all the way through their phase of marijuana and LSD use.  The drugs they used affected their creative output, for sure, but to label this effect as negative just because some cranky old white guys decided that taking LSD was a degenerate thing and should be criminalized would be outrageous.  I'm not denying that there are musicians out there who rely on drugs to give them ideas, but I'm not defending them.  I'm defending the vast majority of musicians whose competency and creative inspiration remain constant throughout both sober and mind-altered periods of expression.  Bottom line is, for you to assume that drug use deteriorates a musician's creativity is premature in the highest degree and I would dispute your right to make such claims.

As for your choice of substance use, this makes me very, very sad.  For one thing, all three of the substances you've mentioned are, in fact, highly addictive and harmful substances that do very little to aid anyone's life in any way that they couldn't help themselves with minus the substance.  Simply because a bunch of old white men have legally sanctioned alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine use does not mean that there is any difference between them and the use of opiates, marijuana, and methamphetamines.  Any serious examination of the actual physical effects of legal mind alterants vs. illegal ones will bring to light the blatant hypocrisy that remains at the center of drug laws.

Quote
Also, so many of these awesome artists who use illicit substances often end up dead because of them, and thats just un-fucking-forgiveable. I get so mad when I hear about some musician I loved or respected ended up OD'ing on some shit he shouldn't have been taking in the first place. I'll always hate that bastard Mitch Hedburg for OD'ing... God damnit it if he wasn't hilarious.


Then why are you OK with musicians who drink and smoke, but not with musicians who smoke weed and take mushrooms or LSD?  Hallucinogens are literally the precise opposite of narcotics.  You can't OD on them and you can't addict yourself to them.  Not a single person has ever died from marijuana or LSD toxicity, and only a single report that I know of references someone who died from eating too many mushrooms (and that person also drank 21 beers during the same time frame).

My main point is, find out what you're talking about before you start forming opinions about what it means.  I highly recommend that you do some research on Erowid.org or a similar website and figure out what exactly drugs do before you start deciding what you think of the people who use them.
Logged
also at one point mid-sex she asked me "what do you think about commercialism in art?"

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #63 on: 16 Jun 2006, 18:26 »

*clap clap clap*

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Also, anti-drugs dude.

Smoke a joint. Just one. Share it with someone, whatever.

Do that, and then watch Reefer Madness.

Compare what the people who banned marijuana thought, as expressed through that film, to what you have just experienced.

Come to the realisation that the only reason any mind and mood altering substances are banned is because:

a) they can't be taxed (weed)

b) black people use them (cocaine)

c) gay people use them (amyl nitrate, at least in the US)

Realise that anything DARE or an equivalent scheme has ever told you about drugs is bullshit.

I mean, I smoke, and I drink coffee and booze, but man, every cigarette you are sucking The Mans cock.

I mean shit.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Praeserpium Machinarum

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #64 on: 16 Jun 2006, 22:43 »

There is quite an interesting inlay in Bonnie 'Prince' Billy & Matt Sweeney - Superwolf which(as far as I can remember, I don't have the cd here) compares the western choice of legal narcotics with the Middle Eastern choice. Basically westerners use nicotine and alcohol and the Middle East use hashish, and it argues that this choice has had a significant impact on the evolution of those two "civilizations". It also toys with the idea of turning it all around to see what our society then would be like.

On topic I don't mind really, I wouldn't do it because I am far too cautious and my parents would kill me. But if it helps the musicians to make better music then by all means smoke. I read The Doors of Perception(Aldous Huxley's account on using mescaline) once and I thought the whole idea that more "harmless" drugs like mescaline could take the place of the ones legal today was great. Trouble is, people don't to want to get a mind altering illustrations of colours in everything around them, they want to get hammered. And then there is the problem with people who are not fit to use it such as people with mental illness and so on.
Logged

Phrozen

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #65 on: 17 Jun 2006, 00:38 »

Quote from: onewheelwizzard
I think you're missing a few very important points here.  While a great deal of anti-drug propaganda has given the majority of society a very skewed idea of what drugs do...


Oh I don't doubt it, I have absolutely no actual experience with drugs apart from what I saw my friends go through.

Quote
...the fact remains that anyone who can't be fun or creative without drugs will certainly offer only pale imitations of creativity with them.  Drugs are best, in fact, for people like you....


Perhaps, but I've enver had any real interest in them... they really can't offer me anything that I want. Thus, I stay away from them.

Quote
To say that drawing from drug experiences to make better music is cheating is a bit like saying it's cheating to write a song about a breakup when you haven't actually broken up with anyone...


I disagree, to a degree... (Go go contradiction!). If someone writes a story that sounds personal and passes it off as such but, in fact, has no actual experience with the subject I consider him a fraud. This is probably influenced by the decision I made to not publish any of my own writing, its all fake. I haven't had the experiences necessary to write honestly about life. This is, again, opinion, but I really don't think people should write personal sounding things and pass it off as their own experience. Sorry, I realize this is tangental but I tihnk it can in a way relate to the original point.

Quote
First of all, I don't want to sound hostile because I realize that these remarks are coming from someone who does not, in fact, understand the nature of drug use and therefore doesn't know any better, but really, who are you to assume that using drugs to enhance creative expression is in any way indicative of an inability to express the same creativity without drugs?


You're right, I don't have any authority to make this claim. I am simply speaking my mind on the subject, you are welcome to disagree with me. Its an experience I'm not interested in.

[qoute]As for your choice of substance use, this makes me very, very sad.  For one thing, all three of the substances you've mentioned are, in fact, highly addictive and harmful substances that do very little to aid anyone's life in any way that they couldn't help themselves with minus the substance.[/quote]

First, I'm not addicted to any of these. Second, I enjoy them on an occaisonal basis so as not to ruin the experience or my body. I hate cigarettes, so those are out too. Bleck, nasty. Third, everything kills you in some way, I may as well enjoy myself in a responsible manner. I don't use any of these in excess, unless you count the all-nighters I occaisonaly pull fueled by coffee or energy drinks. I really need to try some herbal alternatives.

Quote
Then why are you OK with musicians who drink and smoke, but not with musicians who smoke weed and take mushrooms or LSD?


I get upset at any artist who does something to the point it kills them. We were talking about drugs so in this context it would sound like I am talking about drug overdoses. Alchohol, drugs... whatever, kill yourself doing something stupid and I'm going to be pissed. Driving too fast... whatever.

Quote
 Hallucinogens are literally the precise opposite of narcotics.  You can't OD on them and you can't addict yourself to them.  Not a single person has ever died from marijuana or LSD toxicity, and only a single report that I know of references someone who died from eating too many mushrooms (and that person also drank 21 beers during the same time frame).


I've heard the same thing. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, you can develop psychological dependencies on them. And even if that doesn't lead to OD'ing on whatever halucinogen it can lead to other things that will fuck up your life.


Quote
My main point is, find out what you're talking about before you start forming opinions about what it means.  I highly recommend that you do some research on Erowid.org or a similar website and figure out what exactly drugs do before you start deciding what you think of the people who use them.


Well you see, its discourses like this that help teach me. Nothing better than rational discussion to learn with. I'll check out that website when I get some spare time. Cheers.

KharBevNor:

I'm actually not really against the legalization of Marijuana. I've seen sufficient data to suggest it has legitimate, as well as recreational, uses. Still, not for me. My only real problem with weed is that the majority of what people are smoking today is not 100% natural Marijuana. Instead you've got this chemically altered shit thats more powerful than any naturaly grown weed ever. I mean... shit, I don't eat vegetables that were grown with chemicals... why the fuck would I smoke something with that in it?

And yeah... Cigarettes=Evil. Fuck them.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #66 on: 17 Jun 2006, 02:30 »

What?

That sounds like more government crap, mate. Most of my weed comes from a gay librarians back garden. I've never smoked 'unnatural' weed in my life, except maybe that block of mind-numbingly hard resin my mate found in the back of his amp at band practice once. It's always really annoying when someone speaks with such authority about something they don't really know anything about.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #67 on: 17 Jun 2006, 07:36 »

Quote from: Phrozen
Quote
Then why are you OK with musicians who drink and smoke, but not with musicians who smoke weed and take mushrooms or LSD?


I get upset at any artist who does something to the point it kills them. We were talking about drugs so in this context it would sound like I am talking about drug overdoses. Alchohol, drugs... whatever, kill yourself doing something stupid and I'm going to be pissed. Driving too fast... whatever.


You do realise that both fags and booze can kill you pretty sharpish.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

Aneurhythmia

  • Obscure cultural reference
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #68 on: 17 Jun 2006, 07:52 »

Quote from: Phrozen
Quote from: Aneurhythmia
Clarify how these two sentences don't contradict eachother.


I'm not sure I understand where your confusion lies, perhas I'm just a bit dense...

"Drugs are for beginners" is something I used to say a lot. I have a lot of fun with life, Ive done a lot of strange things. Life is plenty wierd for me. So whe I say "Drugs are for beginners" I'm saying that if you need drugs to have fun or be creative, you're doing something wrong. *shrug* its a personal thing.

Now, I'm curious as to how drugs fall outside the scope of life.  What separates the neurochemical stimulus-response status of drugs from that of food, stress, love, sleep, fire, serotonin, oxygen, etc.?
Logged

Misereatur

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,839
  • Quicksand my butt
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #69 on: 17 Jun 2006, 08:11 »

Quote from: Phrozen
I have absolutely no actual experience with drugs

...

You're right, I don't have any authority to make this claim.
Logged
FREE JAZZ ISN'T FREE!

I am a music republican.

Phrozen

  • Guest
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #70 on: 17 Jun 2006, 10:09 »

KharBevNor,

Your weed sounds like it might be a bit more natural than the shit my friends would smoke. Also, some of the ex-hippies I know have confirmed this for me. They've smoked old weed and newer weed, they say there's definately a difference.

DynamiteKid,

Anything in excess will kill you. Like I said before, I enjoy this on occaisons and not all the time. Also, I DON'T SMOKE CIGARETTES. So nyah. :P

Aneurythmia,

You're right. That is a bit of a double standard. I suppose I should consider them a legitamate form of inspiration.


I think this discussion has gotten a bit off track...[/code]
Logged

onewheelwizzard

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,558
  • Ha! Fool ...
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/onewheelwizzard
drugs: visual art versus audible art
« Reply #71 on: 19 Jun 2006, 11:09 »

Regarding the old-weed-vs-new-weed question, the real crux of the matter is breeding.  Before the 1960s weed was just weed.  Now there are designer strains of it.  Weed ended up getting bred and domesticated the same way corn did ... look at what corn looks like now, compare it to wild maize from 50 thousand years ago, and you can't even recognize it.  Weed hasn't been chemically altered except by a select minority of growers ... for the most part, the change in weed has been caused by selective growing and breeding that has been done with an eye towards potency.  The vast majority of weed today is just as "natural" as the weed of many many years ago ... but trying to say they're the same thing is like trying to say a German shepherd is the same as a Yorkie.

Aneurhythmia makes an excellent point ... in a lot of ways, drugs are no different at all from any other form of experience.  They're a shortcut, but they're as natural a shortcut to their corresponding chemical experience as sex is to the chemical experience of endorphin release (and whatever else happens during sex).  Humanity has ALWAYS used drugs, same way it has always had sex and always shared experience through communication and always [insert some other universal human experience here].  In fact, an extremely good case has been made for the idea that psychedelic mushroom use in Africa was the foundation for human culture and civilization as we know it (interestingly enough, the point in history in which some archeologists believe that civilization stopped mushroom use is concordant with the Biblical myth of the expulsion from Eden, both geographically and chronologically ... and considering the shamans were probably all female, who's to say that Eve's "fruit of knowledge" wasn't actually a fungus that early religious zealots demonized in an attempt to keep people in line?)

I'm going off on a tangent again (if you want to explore the ideas I've been talking about, read "Food of the Gods" by Terrence McKenna.)  I have a couple other points to address.

First off, this quote:
Quote
If someone writes a story that sounds personal and passes it off as such but, in fact, has no actual experience with the subject I consider him a fraud. This is probably influenced by the decision I made to not publish any of my own writing, its all fake. I haven't had the experiences necessary to write honestly about life. This is, again, opinion, but I really don't think people should write personal sounding things and pass it off as their own experience.

Whatever happened to inspiration?  What happened to empathy, putting yourself in the shoes of another?  If one needs personal experience in order to write "honestly" about life, then 99% of all fiction written in history is completely bogus and nobody should ever write anything but autobiographies.  I think anyone with an appreciation for creativity can see the problem with this idea.  Anything that someone feels enough to express creatively is legitimately personal regardless of whether or not it has basis in physical life experience, and I would posit that this includes drug experiences.  Your writing isn't any more fake than [your favorite writer]'s.

Secondly, "I really need to try some herbal alternatives"???  How about weed, the viable "herbal alternative" to the poison of alcohol?  Just pointing out the obvious.  "Responsible" alcohol use isn't as responsible as similarly moderated marijuana use.

Regarding the difference between hallucinogens and hard drugs/alcohol/nicotine/anything else that addicts you to it and can kill you, well, I won't say that casualties like Roky Erickson and Syd Barrett don't happen.  But there are responsible ways to use hallucinogens as well, and there are irresponsible ways of backing out of your driveway in the morning that can endanger yourself and others.

I guess my bottom line is, don't let the legal or illegal status of mind-altering substances convince you that they somehow behave on a set of different rules than the rest of human experience.  Learn about them first.  Forming opinions without knowing what you're talking about is a bit like ... well, what would you say to a 10-year-old whose dad was injured in a car accident and wanted to outlaw driving?
Logged
also at one point mid-sex she asked me "what do you think about commercialism in art?"
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up