Message 32/113
Date: 29-Jun-99 @ 08:31 PM -
RE: Drug Addicts...
fun rant. first, a prominent u.s. university did a study some years back on experimental drug use and psychological stability. it found that those students who had experimented with drug use were on average more well adjusted than those who had not. now the reasons for this are up for debate, but most believe that well-adjusted people are more capable and open to experimentation in general.
as for drug policy, i'm with craig. the u.s. policy changed drastically in the 80's when the then director of drug policy (name eludes me) changed the rhetoric on drug use from a health debate to a criminal debate. since then, drug convictions have skyrocketed and minorities in this country have had to take the brunt of the offensive. meanwhile, tobacco and alcohol, which claim more lives than all other drugs combined, get off scott free. not to mention, many studies claim tobacco is more addictive than heroin.
natural vs. processed drugs. please don't take offense when i say, imho, it doesn't make a bit of difference (except in one's preference). look, a chemical is a chemical is a chemical. we are bio-chemical entities and the body cares little (except in respect to the psychologically induced placebo effect) where something comes from, but rather what is it made of and how it reacts with our normal functions. psyllisibin (sp?), regardless of it's origin in a mushroom, screws with your brains normal biochemical functioning, just as ecstasy does (albeit in different ways, hence the different sensations). and be honest, the herb of today is not the herb of yesteryear. on average (at least here in the states) the drug content in marijuana is higher than 20 years ago. why? careful cultivation and breeding, just like in any agricultural venture, leads to better product (but is it truly natural, as marijuana didn't naturally occur this strong). true, you're chances of o.d. from smoking too many bowls is a hell of a lot less than from snorting too many lines, but whether a drug is "natural" or not isn't the issue, rather the level of content with respect to how much the body can handle.
finally, on the artist and drug use. i heard a fairly well known clinical psychiatrist here in the states speak on artists and drug abuse. his assessment is that the personality types of many musicians (apparently he has more than a few stars as clients) are that of people who find danger and the extreme pleasurable, much as "extreme" sports athletes do. on top of that, many artists, addressing psychological issues within themselves and living within the pressured confines of the "scene", find drugs more readily accessible to deal with problems than the average joe. in this way, its easier for many stars (he used jimi hendrix as an example) to go from experimenter to addict. for my part, i would say the drugs are less a reason than a symptom of the pain and/or general psychological complexities most artists funnel into their art. thus, i see drug use only as a byproduct of outlook that can be purely experimental (used as a means for exploration) or dangerous (eg. addiction), but ultimately irrelevant to the success or failure of the artist.
sorry about the thesis paper. -p.