Drugs and Literature

[ben]

A lot of Aldous Huxleys later work involved exploring the 'inner side' of life through hallucinogens, mostly LSD as i know. As a lot of people on the board compose their own poetry / fiction, I just wondered whether drugs or drug related experiences played a part in either giving inspiration or new perspective's / ideas toward peoples writing or even outlook on life?

Btw moderators this post isn't trying to glorify drug use or condone it, I'm just interested.

[amuse]

well hell my mother's been in & out of rehab for 30 years due to speed, so as far as an outlook on drugs: mine's stay away from any of the freakin' stuff; one can live just fine without 'em.

'course that's just me. what the hell do i know.

[ben]

amuse: Yeah, that's understandable.

The thread was concerned more with my curiosity as to whether people on the board who write have been influenced by the drugs thing, just out of interest, rather than a general condemnation or support of the issue as i whole.

[Nemerov]

I think you have to have something to get you going. Some kind of thrill. Like a wonderful book, a movie, talking to a wonderful person, walking in rain, music ... I think that when I reach a point where none of these things help me to feel alive, to get the adrenaline pumping, I might resort to something else. I couldn't live without that drive.

[verybaddmom]

as i have admitted on this forum in other threads, i do smoke a bit of pot once in a while. i used to find that it sort of helped me get through that barrier that we seem to develop between our concious minds and imaginations. as i have become older, my mind seems to track more realistic issues all the time, and my access to my imagination has been declining steadily. smoking pot helped me relax a bit and let go of the crud that gums up my brain. so yes i have written some great stuff when high, but if that was the only way i could write, i would be worried.

[amuse]

ben: then in answer: :) no i don't use the stuff to write. i never will. like i said, that's just me. mea culpa re: the soapbox.

[verybaddmom]

amuse, that's something i didnt know about you...the thing with your mom, that is.
sorry to hear that hon. that must have been difficult.
and frankly woman, you dont need any help.your writing is amazing the way it is!
ps: i love your new sig!

[amuse]

:) thanks! i've always loved yours.
funny, i didn't realize i hadn't mentioned. wow, i've been quiet. :D
i will write to you, 'k. must launder.

[atreides]

I think Adolf Hitler was on drugs when he wrote Mein Kampf...

[subterranean]

sorry to hear about your Mom amuse...had bad experiences with some good friends coz of drugs also..i never understood how people could made great works with the help of drugs, how did they do it..?!perhaps the half concious state makes someone more intellegence in a way....Jim Morrison wrote many great poems under the influence of drugs and being in that condition had become his own reality....

[amuse]

at least she's alive. jimi isn't. grrr.
thank you, subterranean and vbm.
didn't know that about jim morrison.

[verybaddmom]

*hugs*

s10cr

[amuse]

*hugs back. :wave:

[Black Flag]

A lot of Aldous Huxleys later work involved exploring the 'inner side' of life through hallucinogens, mostly LSD as i know. As a lot of people on the board compose their own poetry / fiction, I just wondered whether drugs or drug related experiences played a part in either giving inspiration or new perspective's / ideas toward peoples writing or even outlook on life?

Btw moderators this post isn't trying to glorify drug use or condone it, I'm just interested.

Couldn't tell you much about drugs in relation to writing (except for feeling rather poetic a few times when smoking grass). As for drinking, however, that's a different story altogether. Very often when I'm deep in bed with bottled barley and hops the haze in my mind clears for an instant and I suddenly see something for what it is--an aspect or percpective on an idea that I probably never would have thought of sober. The next day I recall it and write it down. This has happened many times and has been an asset to wrtiting, no matter the other unrelated negative effects of intoxication.

Besides, there is only one name I need mention in connection with drugs and literature: Edgar Allan Poe. I doubt if he had been clean during his career we would even know of him or his works.

[Diceman]

You might like to mention Samuel Taylor Coleridge in the same breath as Mr. Poe.

"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasuredome decree..."

[baddad]

Edgar Allen Poe, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Aldous Huxley, Alexander Pope, Ernest Hemingway, etc., ad infinium.........

Sure, SOME of the most interesting stuff ever written has bubbled and oozed from primal centres of the brain accessed only through the use of mind altering drugs; alcohol, cocaine, heroin, LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, speed and laudanum (a recipe from old, a mixture of alcohol and opium, one of Pope's faves) to name a few. But true insight, true art, has as its ambassadors a legion of names famous for structures not dependent on quasi-significant substance abuse. Is early death an indication of greatness? Does a pop culture icon dictate thinking peoples acceptance of the true route to stardom, greatness, misaligned values judging great art? Sorrily... maybe so...

Myself, I've used most of these substances at one time or another, not to brag, not to compare, but things that just are. No right, no wrong. But an artists directive is to change the world, to hold up the mirror of truth, dispell the myths and kill the dragons that hold the villages captive.........................

Nuff said.........

[Jack_Aubrey]

I've abused drugs and alcohol in my past. I was in love with grass this last summer and I just now decided to quit. I did it because it was repressing feelings of depression and other things I didnt want to deal with. A closer look revealed it was a problem and the only way I could get rid of my demons was to confront them head on and work through them in my diary or the like. I also stopped because it put me in a huge writers block and just clouded my understanding and reasoning all together. In short it just wasnt worth it. There are alot of other things in this world I can use to get me off, that will not harm my body and my mind.

[genoveva]

an artists directive is to change the world

I disagree.

I could be...

but it isn't always.

One thing an artist does for sure
is show their perspective of the world.

In addition to the authors listed previously in this thread, consider the whole Beat Generation. Ken Kesey. Probably most song lyricists...

[blp]

As I understand it, when Rimbaud started trying to totally disorder all his senses with things like opium and absinthe, that was when the inspiration dried up.

Taking drugs to become a better writer is like taking drugs to become a better person - stupid, self-loathing and lazy.

[chmpman]

I've seen a film clip of Kesey and his Merry Pranksters later in their lives, and I have to say it was quite sad. The man was a genius early in life, but I'm afraid drug abuse may have deterioted his artistic/personal development; leaving him lost in a time of the past.

[genoveva]

I've seen a film clip of Kesey and his Merry Pranksters later in their lives, and I have to say it was quite sad. The man was a genius early in life, but I'm afraid drug abuse may have deterioted his artistic/personal development; leaving him lost in a time of the past.

Well, Ken Kesey and many of the Pranksters are from the area I live in and I think he was quite artistic and very personable all the way up to the very sad time of his recent death. His later works are considered just as respectable as his earlier ones. He supported and contributed to a lot of "artistic" events in the community, and was a very friendly guy.

I also think there is a difference between drug "abuse" and drug "use".

Anyway, I wonder what film clip you saw of Kesey and the Pranksters that made you feel sad?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

No one has mentioned William Burroughs! The druggiest of the druggies. A junky for years and one of the best exponents of incoherent beauty ever.

Add David Bowie to the mix - his best period came when he was experimenting with heroin-induced, self destruction - as soon as he got straight, his talent dried up like an orange in a microwave.

But I wouldn't advocate that kind of heavy usage - most bodies really can't take it - there's a long list of burnt-out and dead artists out there folks. On the other side of the coin we have the likes of Brian Jones, Syd Barrett, Hendrix, Joplin, Cobain, the list goes on ...

I heard an excellent description of LSD (it might have been by one of the Red Hot Cilli Peppers, I'm not sure) - "Acid is like Phoenix Arizona, a nice place for a visit once in a while, but after a few times there's not that much more to see and I certainly wouldn't want to live there."

And I think it was mescaline that Huxley took - LSD was only first synthesised just before his death.

Got to go now - time for my joint. ;)

[genoveva]

No one has mentioned William Burroughs! The druggiest of the druggies. A junky for years and one of the best exponents of incoherent beauty ever.

Got to go now - time for my joint. ;)


:lol: Thanks for the laugh!

As far as Burroughs, well of course! I expected him to be included in with the Beat writers.

I wanted to share this excerpt from Anais Nin that I came across while researching a small bit about her:

"I'm in the midst of writing volume five
which brings in themes from all the other volumes.
It includes my experience of taking LSD.
I was invited to do it by Dr. Oscar Janiger as an experiment.
Dr. Janiger wanted to use a musician, a scientist, a writer.
He said the writer would be better able to tell what it was like.
I was very curious to see whether there was a world that I had never penetrated,
that only LSD could give me.
I'm always curious about an unkown world.

The memory of the LSD experience is very clear and I wrote the whole thing out-
a long, long, long reverie.
And then I compared it to see
whether the images brought on by LSD were similar
to images and sensations and impressions I had already described.
And I found them in my work- particularly in the first book I wrote,
a prose poem, The House of Incest, which was made up of dreams.
The material was so like what was brought on by LSD
that it proved my point that this dream world is a world accessible to the poet,
accessible to the artist.
If we wouldn't belittle the artist and the poet so much,
we wouldn't need drugs to reach these visions.

One of the most marvelous things,
which is almost indescribable
and probably only happened to mystics,
was when I found myself turning into gold.
Suddenly, I turned myself into gold-
and it is a sensation I've never been able to describe
except, perhaps, as it might be compared to making love."

[Xamonas Chegwe]

You are very welcome to the laughs. I give them out for free whenever I can.

Thank you for posting that Anaïs Nin quote. It said what the Chili Pepper quote (if it was them) said, but a lot more eloquently.

[TodHackett]

I've never done anything other than alcohol (not directly; I've been "hotboxed" with friends more than once. And I did some nice writing when I was semi-stoned).

Wait... does salvia divinorum count? I did that once at a party... HIGHLY recommended!

[TodHackett]

There's a LOT of drunkennes in the novel I'm writing.

[Virgil]

As I understand it, when Rimbaud started trying to totally disorder all his senses with things like opium and absinthe, that was when the inspiration dried up.

Taking drugs to become a better writer is like taking drugs to become a better person - stupid, self-loathing and lazy.
Thanks blp for bringing sanity to this. I happen to think that drugs or even alcohol does in no way add to creativity. People who do are deluding themselves. In fact in inhibits creativity. It destroys the nuerons that produce thought processes. It does not help to be under mental distortion. If it were so, then every babbling drunk on the street should be a genius instead of having the mental capability of a seven year old. I can't believe in this time and age people still believe these myths.

[kilted exile]

Thanks blp for bringing sanity to this. I happen to think that drugs or even alcohol does in no way add to creativity. People who do are deluding themselves. In fact in inhibits creativity. It destroys the nuerons that produce thought processes. It does not help to be under mental distortion. If it were so, then every babbling drunk on the street should be a genius instead of having the mental capability of a seven year old. I can't believe in this time and age people still believe these myths.

I think this is appropriate here (I have stolen it from my friends blog - aint sure where he originally got it from):


The 5 Stages of Drunkenness

Stage 1 - FEELING CLEVER
This is when you suddenly become an expert on every subject in the known universe. You know you know everything and you want to pass on your knowledge to anyone who will listen. At this stage you are always right, and, of course, the person you are talking to is very wrong. This makes for an interesting argument when both parties are CLEVER.

Stage 2 - ATTRACTIVE
This is when you realise that you are the most ATTRACTIVE person in the entire bar and that everyone fancies you. You can go up to a perfect stranger knowing that they fancy you and really want to talk to you.
Bear in mind that you are still CLEVER, so you can talk to this person
about any subject under the sun.

Stage 3 - RICH
This is when you suddenly become the RICHEST person in the room. You can buy drinks for the entire bar because you have a bottomless wallet. You can also make bets at this stage, because of course you are still CLEVER so, naturally, you will always win. Anyway, it doesn't matter how much you bet because you are RICH. You will also buy drinks for everyone that you fancy, in the knowledge that you are clearly the most ATTRACTIVE person present.

Stage 4 - INVINCIBLE
You are now ready to pick fights with anyone and everyone, especially
those with whom you have been betting or arguing. This is because you
are now INVINCIBLE. At this point you can also go up to the partners of the people who you fancy and challenge them to a battle of wits or
strength. You have no fear of losing this battle, because as well as
being INVINCIBLE you are CLEVER, you're RICH and you're more ATTRACTIVE than them anyway.

Stage 5- INVISIBLE
This is the final stage of drunkenness. At this point you can do
anything, because you are now INVISIBLE. You can dance on a table to
impress the people who you fancy because the rest of the people in the
room cannot see you. You can also snog the face off them for the same
reason. You are also INVISIBLE to the people who want to fight you. You can walk through the street singing at the top of your lungs because no one can see or hear you and because you're still CLEVER you know all the words.

[genoveva]

Taking drugs to become a better writer is like taking drugs to become a better person - stupid, self-loathing and lazy.

Well, I wouldn't advocate taking drugs to become a better writer, unless by becoming a better writer you mean having more experiences to write about. For, we most commonly write about what we know. I'd also like to remind people that lots of people take prescription drugs exactly in order to become a better person.

Anyhow, I'm personally more interested (regarding this thread) in hearing about authors who reference drugs in their writing or about the influence drugs have/ had on an author's life/writing. (For better or for worse!) I'm definately not interested in a "drugs are bad vs. drugs are good" debate.

By the way blp, I like your signature: "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons". Ah! What would I do without caffeine? Perhaps my favorite drug! ;)

[Virgil]

I think this is appropriate here (I have stolen it from my friends blog - aint sure where he originally got it from):
Thats right, Kilted. It's all an illusion, or better yet delusion, that one is more creative under infleuence.

[blp]

I'd also like to remind people that lots of people take prescription drugs exactly in order to become a better person.


Don't get me started!


By the way blp, I like your signature: "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons". Ah! What would I do without caffeine? Perhaps my favorite drug! ;)

You have me there - though I'm down to one large cup a day. The line is from Eliot's Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock:

For I have known them all already, known them all
Known the evenings, mornings, afternoons
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Thats right, Kilted. It's all an illusion, or better yet delusion, that one is more creative under infleuence.

I quite agree. The only benefit of drugs for some artists (and I stress some - they are not to everyone's taste) is the insights that they can give. A lot of artists produced great works because they had tried drugs in the past. Few have produced the goods when actually under the influence.

As I mentioned earlier, William S Burroughs was probably the greatest exception. Most junkies produce nothing but heartache for those around them (and WSB managed more than his share of that as well as great books from what I've read.)

Even writers like Hemingway and Behan that were famous for liking a drop or two of the hard stuff, were usually sober when they wrote - they just got steaming afterwards!

[BeingaBunny]

The great thing about writing is you can write when you're drunk or stoned or tripping, then fix it up the next morning. Drugs won't make a normal person a great writer. There's no shortcut to that. But drugs can certainly change and influence a writer, for both good and bad.

ps: shakespeare supposedly also used marijuana and cocain and perhaps other substances.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/1943-Shakespeare.jpg

[Logos]

Ja drugs are just great. William S. Burroughs shot and killed his wife while playing "William Tell" under the influence. He served 13 days before they ruled it as "accidental".

[Virgil]

The great thing about writing is you can write when you're drunk or stoned or tripping, then fix it up the next morning. Drugs won't make a normal person a great writer. There's no shortcut to that. But drugs can certainly change and influence a writer, for both good and bad.

ps: shakespeare supposedly also used marijuana and cocain and perhaps other substances.


Here's a perfect example of what drugs do to your brain.

Miss Bunny, where in heaven's name did you here that about Shakespeare? Or were you in some drug induced state when it came to you? You know you must ignore those little voices that talk to you and only you.

I'm sorry if I'm harsh. I apologize, but that is rediculous.

[BeingaBunny]

I'm a mister. Here's some sites of the possibility:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/03/01/shakespeare.cannabis/
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0901215.html
http://shakespeare.about.com/od/shakespearesbiograph1/a/shkMarijuana.htm
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1943.html
http://www.cannabis.net/shakespeare/
http://www.equalrights4all.org/potpride/college.htm
http://www.sfbg.com/reality/29.html

Yeah, it was the little voices in my head, the same voices that tell me you're an *******. Sorry if I'm a bit harsh.

[Virgil]

Mister Bunny

You've got to be kidding me. I thought you were half kidding. Now I see you're really serious. Let me get this straight. Of all the people that have lived there or passed through there in the four hundred years, that's four hundred, they attribute that pipe to Shakespeare? And you believe it? Those articles are garbage. Newspapers will sensationalize anything, especially stuff that's fluff. You need to get a life.

[Logos]

Look Misters, please discuss the topic and not each other :)

[BeingaBunny]

I only said it was a possibility, not that I believe it, just as the articles say. You can try to be a smartypants all you want. I'd guess that Shakespeare probably did smoke cannabis on occasion... just because human beings have tended to do that throughout history. Any media can sensationalize things, even the history books we all take for truth, so don't even try to pull that one. You don't have a clue if these articles are true or not, but most people would probably believe them over you anyways. I actually thought CNN was a good source.

Besides, the pipes date back to 400 years ago - specifically. It's not every pipe they found there in the last 400 years. The pipes are from his time and where he lived. Also, it's likely he smoked up if people around him were doing it too. I don't see what the big deal is.

And I do have a life, but its really crappy. I wish I didn't have one. :thumbs_up

edit: sorry logos

[Virgil]

Ok. Peace. I started the name calling. I apologize to both Bunny and Logos.

[BeingaBunny]

No prob. Sorry I got defensive so easy. :lol:

[genoveva]

Hey, cool picture! Thanks for the links...

[shorebreak]

Well, I'm a bit more than intersested. I am an advoacate of the use of most anything from Rumi to Chemistry to better understand and communicate ourselves. The nice thing about "psychedelics/pshychotropics" and the etc, is that they work and are not especially habituating like the bad "white powders (Smack, Speed, etc.)" out there in the world. Having got *"high* once or twice with lovin' chemicals, i can simply add that the form that thoughts take can be informative. And REAL X (3,4 Methyene DiOxy Methamphetamine, properly verbaged) is a heck of a lot of fun, 'specially if you have a head full of "The Brothers Karamazov" or somethin' thick go'in on as my book club has since the (05) grape harvest hit. (OK, it was my fault, the BK beat ' em up a bit) Yea, yea, yea, its March, 06, we'll get a new bad writer on soon. 'scuse the inconvience, but in fact it is past midnight on the left coast of america and i'm listening to the Beach Boys! How funny is that!
PS: I only have book 4 of the brothers K to do. and....? is it gonna be worth it? i mean, we seem to have dropped deeply into allegory, which is great, i guess, but kinda predictable, i mean, i like these russian writers but, hey, suprise me once in a while. Yea, yea, yea, it'll end in tears. I know that part of story... Answers?

[Isagel]

First of all I guess it is hard to know what the poets, writers and musicians would have done if they hadn´t used drugs. But I am quite certain that a lot more of them would have survived longer, perhaps giving us more art.

Still, if there are any positive effect I guess drugs can sometimes take away the self restraint that stops us from expressing ourselves. It makes us less shy, for good and bad. It can provide with fantasies or fear that can be the subject of stories. We have fun, and with no scientific evidence to prove this I think fun is good for creativity. Strong emotions tend to help us get ideas. I am not sure if it helps us to use the ideas. Anais Nin writes as beautiful about drug experience as of any other subject she encounters. Not because of the drug, but because she has talent. Not in any way comparing myself with Nin I have written while under the influence, when I was sick and had to use painkillers that really made a mess of my mind. I had to rewrite it afterwards, and I think it turned out well. But I think that had less to do with the drugs, then with me writing. The drugs gave the experience. I wrote. I write as well when I am not high. I also had ideas while drunk, that where actually crap, although I thought I invented a whole new way of writing poetry with original ideas. Yeah, right. There we have the effects of the less shy mind…

Now I do not use drugs except coffee. I do not get drunk. I have relatives being alcoholics and I do not want to invite problems.

I work in a clinic for people suffering from various kinds of braindamage. I often meet people who has damages from a lifetime of substance or alcohol abuse. For all the positive short term effects, in the long run it tends to destroy cells in the frontal part of the brain, and limiting the capacity to monitor and control behaviour . That makes us less creative. To not be able to control impulses might sound good for creativity, but is actually the opposite. To be creative you have to be able to create, and get new ideas. Usually these patients tend to get stuck, just repeating a pattern over and over. They tend to make the same mistakes over and over, and it brings them much pain. Some of my patients seems to have had talent. For some of them it is dead. It sounds brutal, and it is.

Drugs made Billie Holiday sing out of tune, and Chet Baker hit the wrong note. I do not think anything else could. For some reason that thought alone makes me sad.

[PeterL]

I only said it was a possibility, not that I believe it, just as the articles say. You can try to be a smartypants all you want. I'd guess that Shakespeare probably did smoke cannabis on occasion... just because human beings have tended to do that throughout history. Any media can sensationalize things, even the history books we all take for truth, so don't even try to pull that one. You don't have a clue if these articles are true or not, but most people would probably believe them over you anyways. I actually thought CNN was a good source.

Besides, the pipes date back to 400 years ago - specifically. It's not every pipe they found there in the last 400 years. The pipes are from his time and where he lived. Also, it's likely he smoked up if people around him were doing it too. I don't see what the big deal is.


I hadn't ever thought of Shakespeare taking coke before, but it is quite possible. Unfortunately, it can't be verified until we get the time machine running. As for him smoking cannibis, that is fairly likely. Smoking pot was rather common until after it became illegal.

[steve12553]

And then there's the story of R.L Stevenson and the cocaine. That being attributed to his writing the first draft of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in something like 36 hours and revising it in about the same amount of time. I don't know that that's true but we do know that coke can have that positive effect ...... for a while. Til it burns out the good parts of the brain.

[The Unnamable]

Reading this thread for the first time (as I just have) is better than any joint. It’s the Literature Forum’s equivalent of White Widow Skunk. Suck it and see.

[blp]

Imagine if they applied the same standards to novelists as Olympic athletes. I'm sorry, Mr. Pinter. You've tested positive for single malt scotch and the committe will be stripping you of your Nobel Prize.

I'm telling you, it could radically overhaul the canon.

[sdr4jc]

.

Besides, there is only one name I need mention in connection with drugs and literature: Edgar Allan Poe. I doubt if he had been clean during his career we would even know of him or his works.


Yes he's the first thing that comes to my mind as well. I'm a "virgin" to all drugs, never tried any of them. I've taken Adderall, but it was prescribed. Trying to write something creative while under it's effects, though, was like trying to see a big, beautiful old tree, but being more distracted with counting it's rings than seeing its beauty. Yes, the medication helped with concentration, but ultimately, I feel as though my best work is MY work, not drug-induced.

[BeingaBunny]

I work in a clinic for people suffering from various kinds of braindamage. I often meet people who has damages from a lifetime of substance or alcohol abuse. For all the positive short term effects, in the long run it tends to destroy cells in the frontal part of the brain, and limiting the capacity to monitor and control behaviour . That makes us less creative. To not be able to control impulses might sound good for creativity, but is actually the opposite. To be creative you have to be able to create, and get new ideas. Usually these patients tend to get stuck, just repeating a pattern over and over. They tend to make the same mistakes over and over, and it brings them much pain. Some of my patients seems to have had talent. For some of them it is dead. It sounds brutal, and it is.

Hi. I was wondering which drugs in particular destroy the cells in the frontal part of the brain. I'm guessing substances like lsd or x, but you also see alcoholics with this problem? That's interesting. I know marijuana doesn't kill brain cells anyways.

I just thought it would be nice to have this clarified. It's a common fallacy that marijuana kills brain cells, so I don't want anyone to be confused or misinformed. Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, but of course alcohol does. I just never knew it could get that serious.

[PeterL]

Hi. I was wondering which drugs in particular destroy the cells in the frontal part of the brain. I'm guessing substances like lsd or x, but you also see alcoholics with this problem? That's interesting. I know marijuana doesn't kill brain cells anyways.

I just thought it would be nice to have this clarified. It's a common fallacy that marijuana kills brain cells, so I don't want anyone to be confused or misinformed. Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, but of course alcohol does. I just never knew it could get that serious.

Alcohol is known to kill brain cells, but it takes a huge amount of alcohol over many years to make a significant difference. LSD is not known to kill brain cells any more than water.

[Virgil]

From the New york Times, March 21, 2006:


Behavior: Marijuana and a Slower Mind and Body
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Long-term heavy users of marijuana perform significantly worse on tests of mental agility and physical dexterity than short-term users or nonusers, even when they have abstained from smoking for more than 24 hours, new research shows.

Scientists, led by Lambros Messinis, a neuropsychologist at University Hospital in Petras, Greece, tested three groups.

They were 20 long-term users who had smoked four or more marijuana cigarettes a week for at least 10 years, 20 short-term users who had smoked a similar amount for 5 to 10 years and, finally, 24 people, representing a control group, who had used marijuana no more than 20 times in their lives and not in the prior two years.

The long- and short-term users were drawn from participants in a drug rehabilitation program.

Even after controlling for I.Q., other drug use, age, sex, depression and other variables, long-term users scored significantly lower than control group members and shorter-term users on tests of verbal fluency, memory and coordination.

The exercises included naming objects when shown pictures of them, thinking up words with the same initial letter, listening to lists of words and later recalling them and drawing lines in the proper order among numbers and letters randomly spread on paper.

The study appears in the March issue of Neurology.

Dr. Messinis acknowledged that the results might have differed with marijuana users from the general population. Still, he said, the study was carefully controlled, and frequent heavy use appeared to have significant negative effects on performance.

Anyone that thinks that drugs are a positive or even non-harmful thing are deluding themselves. Perhaps they've taken too much already to think clearly.

[genoveva]

From the New york Times, March 21, 2006:

The long- and short-term users were drawn from participants in a drug rehabilitation program.

Dr. Messinis acknowledged that the results might have differed with marijuana users from the general population.



This part makes me raise an eyebrow. Could the results be because the long term studies where made on older people vs. short time studies being younger people? Older people would generally have slower mental and physical agility anyhow. Also, perhaps there were other drugs abused that caused this slowing down. (They are all in a drug rehabilitation program! Just marijuana doesn't usually get you to one of these places.) It seems if they wanted to prove marijuana caused this, that they would have used a different population to test on. One where they could isolate only marijuana users.

[Virgil]

This part makes me raise an eyebrow. Could the results be because the long term studies where made on older people vs. short time studies being younger people? Older people would generally have slower mental and physical agility anyhow. Also, perhaps there were other drugs abused that caused this slowing down. (They are all in a drug rehabilitation program! Just marijuana doesn't usually get you to one of these places.) It seems if they wanted to prove marijuana caused this, that they would have used a different population to test on. One where they could isolate only marijuana users.
It said the long term users smoked for ten years. That would probably put them in their thirties. That's not that old. You can rationalize taking drugs to whatever extent makes you happy. They are illiegal for a reason. It effects you. It effects you negatively.

[genoveva]

They are illiegal for a reason.

But all drugs are not illegal everywhere! :argue:

[PeterL]

It said the long term users smoked for ten years. That would probably put them in their thirties. That's not that old. You can rationalize taking drugs to whatever extent makes you happy. They are illiegal for a reason. It effects you. It effects you negatively.

They are illegal for a reason: so that the government can exercise power over the personal behavior of people. Whether drugs affect people negatively depends on the individual.

[SleepyWitch]

nah, I don't do drugs... my caffeine consumption does occassionally reach alarming levels, though :lol:
when I'm high on caffeine i get all kinds of crazy ideas but they never really lead anywhere....
my mind is on overload right now because I'm working on a term paper about a crazy book and my creative writing profits from that as a side effect...
i tend to get intoxicated by ideas...
but drugs would probably give me depressions or writer's block..so I'm not gonna touch them

[genoveva]

They are illegal for a reason: so that the government can exercise power over the personal behavior of people.

add to that:
so that the government can exercise power over the personal choice/freedom of people. :rage:

[PeterL]

add to that:
so that the government can exercise power over the personal choice/freedom of people. :rage:

Yes, that's what it is about, power.

[Geoffrey]

It said the long term users smoked for ten years. That would probably put them in their thirties. That's not that old. You can rationalize taking drugs to whatever extent makes you happy. They are illegal for a reason. It effects you. It effects you negatively.


Thats absolutely not true. The illegal drugs in this country are so for reasons that do not include how they actually effect a person. If that were the case alcohol should be outlawed.
I don't drink, but smoke marijuana regularly as a mode of relaxation, and also as an alternative point of perspective. Drugs certainly change one's personal reality, which is neat. They of course, do have coarse effects, but than, what doesn't!
But I'm just trying to rationalize for my drug use I guess... just like your trying to rationalize for you non-drug use. Folks can believe anything they want, but the truth is in the pudding. Taking drugs, or not, has few potentially negative or positive effects. It has much more to do with what space one wants to explore in there life and what they find adventure and excitement in.

[Virgil]

I quit this argument. It's not my life that's be affected. Good luck. Don't come crying to me for help or for my hard earned tax money to help you out. You've been informed. I take it you're old enough to take responsibility.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Long term, heavy, daily use of any drug (and I include alcohol, Valium, Prozac, caffeine, nicotene & lots of other 'legal' substances) is not going to do you any good. Ocassional use of drugs can offer a different perspective and thus aid creativity, especially cannabis and the psychadelics.

Coke and opiates just screw you up though - as does alcohol but somehow I don't care in that case!

[BeingaBunny]

From the New york Times, March 21, 2006:
Anyone that thinks that drugs are a positive or even non-harmful thing are deluding themselves. Perhaps they've taken too much already to think clearly.

I don't see anyone here thinking that at all. We must not be reading the same page. I said that marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, which is true. PeterL said LSD doesn't kill brain cells either. Obviously they can be harmful in ways, but they don't kill brain cells.

Although I would argue that drugs can be positive at times. I don't see why anyone shouldn't be allowed to use drugs such as cannabis recreationally. If that's what makes them happy, I'm alright with it.

Mankind has smoked cannabis since the ancient times in such places as Scythia and Thrace. That's a long time ago. The point is, marijuana hasn't harmed human beings significantly since then and it isn't harming much now either.

Potheads aren't much of a threat to society. Rapists are much worse in my opinion, yet punishments regarding marijuana are similar in some states and harsher in others. The crime is not as serious as murder, rape, or theft in any way whatsoever, and the common recreational user does not belong in a prison with people like that. As it stands right now, the most harmful thing about marijuana is getting caught.

[Isagel]

Hi. I was wondering which drugs in particular destroy the cells in the frontal part of the brain. I'm guessing substances like lsd or x, but you also see alcoholics with this problem? That's interesting. I know marijuana doesn't kill brain cells anyways.

I just thought it would be nice to have this clarified. It's a common fallacy that marijuana kills brain cells, so I don't want anyone to be confused or misinformed. Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, but of course alcohol does. I just never knew it could get that serious.

I hadn´t noticed your question. I have not found any reports on marijuana "killing braincells". I have found different studies on marijuana use and long term effects, but the results differ. What I have found as common in the reports are a slowing down on mental processes, that seems so be reversible. But the reports are inconclusive. There are also a risk of psychosis. The drugs that do damage to the cells ( or really the fat in the brain) are usually things that can act like solvents - alcohol, or sniffing glue. Other drugs known to damage are ecstacy that can harm the parts of the brain that creates the chemicals that makes us feel joy and can lead to depression that is hard to cure. Amfetamin makes the blood vessels in the brain contract a slight bit which makes it alot easier to get stroke. Well enough of this. Back to literature. ( I can get references for you, I am just takeing out of my memory. You can check Muriel Lezak, Neuropsychological assessment. Lot about the alcohol related problems in there.)

[genoveva]

A lot of Aldous Huxleys later work involved exploring the 'inner side' of life through hallucinogens, mostly LSD as i know. As a lot of people on the board compose their own poetry / fiction, I just wondered whether drugs or drug related experiences played a part in either giving inspiration or new perspective's / ideas toward peoples writing or even outlook on life?

Btw moderators this post isn't trying to glorify drug use or condone it, I'm just interested.

This is just a reminder of what the original post stated.



I quit this argument. It's not my life that's be affected. Good luck. Don't come crying to me for help or for my hard earned tax money to help you out. You've been informed. I take it you're old enough to take responsibility.

Virgil, this really wasn't supposed to be an argument. It was supposed to be a discussion on composing while under the influence or not.

Again, I do not think a debate on drug use/legality is what the original poster had in mind. :brickwall

[Logos]

"To fathom hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of Psychedelic"

--Humphry Osmond, British psychiatrist and psychedelic researcher who coined the word "psychedelic", in a letter to Aldous Huxley in 1956

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/osmond_humphry/osmond_humphry.shtml

[chmpman]

You should start another thread that centers around that topic. You'll get more responses I bet.

[Virgil]

Has anyone here read Junky? William Burroughs.

P.S. I'm wondering if anyone here can tell me more about the whole beat generation, Kerouac, Ginsberg etc. I've heard Howl, I've read Junky, I've got On The Road though I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, and I'd like to know how the movement grew and evolved.
Here's a google search with lots of sites to explore: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=beat+writers

I've never been a big fan of their poetry (except for "Howl"), it's too sloppy for me, but On The Road is a really fun read. Also don't forget Lawrence Ferlinghetti (spelled his named wrong).