# Classical Music Under the Influence



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

As it is known that several composers used substances to create, do you ever listen under various substances?

There is one here in Ohio called Delta 8 THC which I enjoy, it's like legal Marijuana. It's a different experience for sure.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The only substance I have ever indulged is alcohol -- but listening after imbibing attenuates the highs I hear, so I mostly don't.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Classical Music Under the Influence (CMUI): the operation of a compact disc player or record turntable whilst impaired by alcohol or drugs.

1st degree misdemeanor; 18-month suspension with 6 months probation afterwards.

"Honestly, officer, I didn't hear that crescendo approaching ... "


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Never have and never will. Just don't like it.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Don't know whether it fits the title of the thread, but Wagner was inspired by women ... (Wesendonck-Lieder, Tristan)


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Alcohol is my drug of choice. One of my most pleasurable ways to relax and renew is to pour a nice scotch, bourbon, or cognac. Put on some favorite music and just listen. It's how I almost always end a Sunday. Certain composers demand a special drink: when Vaughan Williams is on, it's always Harvey's Bristol Cream, which the composer also enjoyed. For Bax it's usually Jameson's Black Barrel Irish Whisky or even a Guiness. My well-stocked bar is always ready! I have never used any other drug - legal or not - and never will. Although a friend who was very much into Magic Mushrooms back in the '60s says you've never heard Mahler until you've heard it while under the influence of psilocybin. Not a route I want to take.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

It's not a good idea to listen to music ''inspired'' by substances. I see no good in it except for encouraging listeners to try them as well. Women might be an exception because most people legitimately have the experience. It should not be encouraged, though.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Rogerx said:


> Never have and never will. Just don't like it.


Excellent - that leaves more for me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

KevinW said:


> It's not a good idea to music ''inspired'' by substances. I see no good in it except for encouraging listeners to try them as well. Women might be an exception because most people legitimately have the experience. It should not be encouraged, though.


Your first sentence misses a critical word or two...

And I'm not sure I understand the reference to women. Are they a drug to be forsworn?

Oh, and yes, I've often listened to music while under the influence of alcohol, but I've only taken non-prescription drugs twice and music was not involved at the time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"history suggests Berlioz composed at least a portion of it (symphonie fantastique) under the influence of opium."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There was a time when I took marijuana quite often and music certainly sounded different when I did. The details stood out much more but perhaps at the expense of the overall structure. I also think that it helped in my early days of listening to contemporary music - it made sense much more quickly. Other substances that I have tried haven't enhanced classical music for me although I think I can remember the more punky rock music sounding better when I had taken amphetamines (usually with alcohol).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Would the composers or the performers of CM be pleased if they knew their works were heard by people with deliberately impaired brain function? I get all the juice from music with a cleanly-functioning mind--tears, joy, tears of joy. The only music I know that is deliberately to be heard under the influence is the Semuta music of _Dune_


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

In my case, music itself is enough of a mental stimulant.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> impaired


Altered, enhanced even.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Alcohol is my drug of choice. One of my most pleasurable ways to relax and renew is to pour a nice scotch, bourbon, or cognac. Put on some favorite music and just listen. It's how I almost always end a Sunday. Certain composers demand a special drink: when Vaughan Williams is on, it's always Harvey's Bristol Cream, which the composer also enjoyed. For Bax it's usually Jameson's Black Barrel Irish Whisky or even a Guiness. My well-stocked bar is always ready! I have never used any other drug - legal or not - and never will. Although a friend who was very much into Magic Mushrooms back in the '60s says you've never heard Mahler until you've heard it while under the influence of *psilocybin*. Not a route I want to take.


Psilocybin - is that not an obscure tone poem by Sir Granville Bantock?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

As a working musician your gigs are in bars, with liquor readily available, often for free. Plus during breaks it is not uncommon (understatement) for patrons to offer you other things ... After a while we became used to performing with some kind of buzz and made a joke, "in order to play stoned, you have to practice stoned."


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

weed goes well with Feldman


i'd suggest MDMA with anything with really interesting timbres but honestly if you're doing MDMA listen to something other than classical music (also it's illegal)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Altered, enhanced even.


I don't want my surgeon or my lawyer to work on my behalf stoned. Ditto musicians.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think it depends on the music


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Would the composers or the performers of CM be pleased if they knew their works were heard by people with deliberately impaired brain function? I get all the juice from music with a cleanly-functioning mind--tears, joy, tears of joy. The only music I know that is deliberately to be heard under the influence is the Semuta music of _Dune_


What does it matter to you (let alone composers)? I suppose you also feel that people with a mental illness shouldn't listen to good music? And also that it wouldn't be right for people with particularly perceptive or imaginative minds to use their brains to listen to music? It seems that if we are not in an SF book we must all come down/across/_up_ (?) to the level of mere mortals such as yourself!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is strange to recall but I think my classical music taste under the influence was considerably more high brow than it normally is. I found a number of composers who I still hear as "lesser" used to put me to sleep.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> What does it matter to you (let alone composers)? I suppose you also feel that people with a mental illness shouldn't listen to good music? And also that it wouldn't be right for people with particularly perceptive or imaginative minds to use their brains to listen to music? It seems that if we are not in an SF book we must all come down/across/_up_ (?) to the level of mere mortals such as yourself!


Mental illness is not the result of an act of will. And who is to say that certain people have particularly perceptive and imaginative minds and are so better equipped to enjoy music than others? There is no way of criticizing or evaluating the worth to others of their taste. This vitiates the full force of my argument, as users are free to enjoy anything they choose to, but I am convinced that composers wish to have their music heard with an unaltered mental state rather than one that is willfully induced by the auditor.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> What does it matter to you (let alone composers)?


What a curious question. There is nothing wrong with SM's observation. Do you think he is being judgemental about the rest of us mere mortals who have listened to music under the influence? I didn't think he was; he was just stating what I'm sure is probably true.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Would the composers or the performers of CM be pleased if they knew their works were heard by people with deliberately impaired brain function?


Don't know and don't care.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

We already consistently violate the expected norms of how we were supposed to listen to classical music. No composer would have expected that we would listen to a symphony by ourself, or a Requiem Mass in our living rooms, nor would they have written with the expectation that we could rewind and listen to recordings over and over again, as opposed to only listening to any given piece a few times in our lifetimes, if that.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> Don't know and don't care.


What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

fbjim said:


> We already consistently violate the expected norms of how we were supposed to listen to classical music. No composer would have expected that we would listen to a symphony by ourself, or a Requiem Mass in our living rooms, nor would they have written with the expectation that we could rewind and listen to recordings over and over again, as opposed to only listening to any given piece a few times in our lifetimes, if that.


No, but they would be delighted with the prospect. Of course, today's composers know all about modern customs and amenities.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

They probably won't mind since, for sure, many of them also used substances. They are people too, & composers aren't usually thought of as role models of abstinence.

That being said, you can listen to music however you want, but music should be good enough in its own terms. You shouldn't have to take a substance just to enjoy listening to something.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?


A decent dictionary will give you the answer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

4chamberedklavier said:


> That being said, you can listen to music however you want, but music should be good enough in its own terms. You shouldn't have to take a substance just to enjoy listening to something.


I agree, but the issue is whether taking a preferred substance might enhance one's musical enjoyment. I've known folks who would answer in the affirmative and others who would say it's just the opposite. Takes all types.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

KevinW said:


> It's not a good idea to listen to music ''inspired'' by substances. I see no good in it except for encouraging listeners to try them as well.


I'm pretty sure that rock and jazz musicians expect their audiences to be high on something, so I'm not sure why classical musicians would be any different.

I did this a lot when I was in college. I particularly liked to listen to vocal recitals in that state - it made singers' flaws somewhat less bothersome.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Weed might help me finally get through Mahler.

Generally speaking, though, no. I think temporal recall is an important feature of music appreciation, for me anyway. I'm sure I would _enjoy _whatever sensations THC-influenced listening might bring, but I wouldn't _remember _any of it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Forster said:


> What a curious question. There is nothing wrong with SM's observation. Do you think he is being judgemental about the rest of us mere mortals who have listened to music under the influence? I didn't think he was; he was just stating what I'm sure is probably true.


I may be wrong but I did read it as a little superior and hiding that by suggesting that Mozart or Karajan would be distressed!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> A decent dictionary will give you the answer.


I guess you didn't get it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I may be wrong but I did read it as a little superior and hiding that by suggesting that Mozart or Karajan would be distressed!


I think they would be distressed. Fulsome praise from a stoned auditor of music or viewer of art might be, at best, bittersweet.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I guess you didn't get it.


No, I got it. My response was not a serious one (although accurate).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I don't want my surgeon or my lawyer to work on my behalf stoned. Ditto musicians.


Unfortunately, musicians are not exempt from the perils of drug and alcohol addiction....some very big talents have been hampered or squandered by substance abuse....


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Classical Music Under the Influence*
________________________________________________



Captainnumber36 said:


> As it is known that several composers used substances to create, do you ever listen under various substances?
> ....


I _will_ admit to worshipping "at the shrine of the 'bottle'" when I listen to music, classical or otherwise, privately in my listening room at home. But that "bottle" is the audiophile slang for vacuum tube, which outfits my stereo rig's preamps and power amp: 12AX7s, 12AT7s, 6J1P-EVs, 6N6Ps, KT88s. Other than that, music provides enough of a drug for me, addicted as I am to it.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

mbhaub said:


> Although a friend who was very much into Magic Mushrooms back in the '60s says you've never heard Mahler until you've heard it while under the influence of psilocybin. Not a route I want to take.


Wasn't this the line from _Educating Rita_; "Isn't Mahler just divine?" or similar. Was it the drinking or smoking when the line was delivered? So long since I've seen the film.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

wkasimer said:


> I'm pretty sure that rock and jazz musicians expect their audiences to be high on something, so I'm not sure why classical musicians would be any different.


The only common drug for most of European history until the mid-19th century was alcohol. And while there were certainly lots of composers, musicians and listeners who drank too much, I am not aware of a custom to get drunk before or during a classical concert or opera, unlike with weed and other more recent drugs and popular music of the last 70 years. There might also have been circles in the 19th and 20th century who used opiates or other drugs in combination with classical music, but I have never heard of any. I'd also think that many recreational drugs would be detrimental to performance, except maybe amphetamines and nicotine (tobacco was of course used in abundance and not even considered a vice until recently) and this would be a bigger problem in classical music than more loosely organized/improvised music. 
So there are several cultural and musical reasons why classical music would be considerably different, I think.

Although I grew up in the 1970s and 80s when tobacco smoke was still almost everywhere I nevertheless am surprised that it must have been worse in the early/mid 20th century with artists sporting cigarettes on publicity fotos and during rehearsals (with ashtrays next to music stands or on the piano...)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> Wasn't this the line from _Educating Rita_; "Isn't Mahler just divine?" or similar. Was it the drinking or smoking when the line was delivered? So long since I've seen the film.


"Wouldn't you just DIE without Mahler?"


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^@Kreisler jr: Bernstein used to smoke like the proverbial chimney. I recall a documentary/bio about him showing him in the wings just before going onstage, with a topcoat draped over his shoulders like a cape, his "handler", very much like that of a prizefighter, removed Lenny's coat/cape and took the cigarette from his lips. Then Bernstein walked out into the floodlights.....


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I have heard/read that during a concert break such an assistant/handler waited in the wings with a cigarette already lighted that Lenny could immediately get a smoke to relax.
Quite a few performers were (often heavy) smokers; I don't know if Argerich quit after her first cancer, Gulda was another heavy smoker. I never was a smoker but it seems scientifically sound that nicotine helps with concentration and focus and in addition to the general acceptance of smoking in the 20th century this might have been another reason why so many artists, writers, journalists were smokers.
Puccini got throat cancer because of his smoking but the proximate cause of death was probably the radiation treatment that was in an experimental stage in the 1920s and did him more harm than good.

Nevertheless, (classical) singers had to be very careful with smoking (and probably drinking as well) and it was usually not admissible to smoke during a concert, which is different from the typical stadium rock concert or basement jazz club. I don't think classical musicians or audiences are less prone to addiction but to suspect a culture of substance abuse similar to some popular subcultures seems very shaky.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

If we go back to the Classical, Baroque, and earlier periods I think it's a reasonable assumption that composers would have indulged in drinking wine and ale simply because drinking water was far too risky.

As to should people partake of their drug of choice to enjoy music to a higher level I say - do what floats your barque sur l'ocean (as long as it doesn't affect others).


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> ...but I am convinced that composers wish to have their music heard with an unaltered mental state rather than one that is willfully induced by the auditor.


You are? How could you have possibly reached that conclusion?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

gregorx said:


> You are? How could you have possibly reached that conclusion?


I am, as I often affirm, a Bear of Little Brain, and so I failed to realize my point was so clear that you were able to grasp it.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Malx said:


> If we go back to the Classical, Baroque, and earlier periods I think it's a reasonable assumption that composers would have indulged in
> *drinking wine and ale simply because drinking water was far too risky.*


I still feel that way... :lol:


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Malx said:


> If we go back to the Classical, Baroque, and earlier periods I think it's a reasonable assumption that composers would have indulged in drinking wine and ale simply because *drinking water was far too risky*.


That's largely a myth (many people drank water and there were also other options, such as milk or since the 17th century tea and coffee, for those who could afford it) but it is nevertheless true that a lot of beer and wine were drunk, if one could afford it. 
A lot of the beer/ale was very low alcohol (~2% I think), though, so people certainly weren't tipsy all the time. 
In fact hard liquor was rare until the early 17th century and the social consequences of the availability of cheap hard liquor were perceived as devastating, cf. Hogarth's "Gin Lane" and "Beer street".


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

DMT (“The Businessman’s Lunch”), because it condenses what seems like days into a 30min psychotropic trip, in which you encounter little green goblins…

Us Wagnerians therefore need to take a DMT trip, and by end of the overture from Das Rheingold, we’ll believe we’ve sat through an incredibly immersive Ring Cycle!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I think they would be distressed. Fulsome praise from a stoned *auditor *of music or viewer of art might be, at best, bittersweet.


Sorry but I'm just a humble listener. I don't audit anything. I don't claim to have any insights denied to other listeners. These days I don't get stoned but when I did I found it both added to and subtracted from the listening experience.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Kreisler jr said:


> That's largely a myth (many people drank water and there were also other options, such as milk or since the 17th century tea and coffee, for those who could afford it) but it is nevertheless true that a lot of beer and wine were drunk, if one could afford it.
> A lot of the beer/ale was very low alcohol (~2% I think), though, so people certainly weren't tipsy all the time.
> In fact hard liquor was rare until the early 17th century and the social consequences of the availability of cheap hard liquor were perceived as devastating, cf. Hogarth's "Gin Lane" and "Beer street".


There are many cultures around these days where fairly weak "beer" (often it is more a fermented porridge) is routinely made in houses. When I have come across this practice it has been explained to me as an important source of nutrition (i.e. it is food) but there is no doubt it is intoxicating.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> Nevertheless, (classical) singers had to be very careful with smoking


That seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. Caruso was often photographed with a cigarette, as was Richard Tauber, who ended his career with only one lung after the other was removed due to lung cancer), and a number of other singers have been chain-smokers, Fischer-Dieskau among them:

















And there's a pretty famous picture that I'm unable to dredge up on the web, of Birgit Nilsson playing cards during a break at Bayreuty, with London, Windgassen, Frick, and Hotter. The men are all smoking, and there's a smoky haze that doesn't seem to concern Birgit very much.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I have noticed that there are huge cultural differences concerning what is too much alcohol. In Ukraine and Russia consumption that we (British, American) would consider excessive is seen as fairly normal for them. Several great Russian musicians have praised vodka as an essential - Rostropovich famously so. In China if you visit an official you will be expected to drink a shot or two with him. It doesn't matter if it is early in the morning. Norms vary.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Enthusiast said:


> I have noticed that there are huge cultural differences concerning what is too much alcohol. In Ukraine and Russia consumption that we (British, American) would consider excessive is seen as fairly normal for them. Several great Russian musicians have praised vodka as an essential - Rostropovich famously so. In China if you visit an official you will be expected to drink a shot or two with him. It doesn't matter if it is early in the morning. Norms vary.


Yeah, but you end up looking like Repin's Mussorgsky…


----------



## Marcos (May 3, 2021)

Brahms and Liszt!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

New Mexico now allows the selling of weed for recreational purposes at licensed stores. From what I hear, folks from Texas are driving in to make their purchases. Anyways, there's a licensed store within walking distance from my home. Maybe I'll meet some composers from Texas there.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> New Mexico now allows the selling of weed for recreational purposes at licensed stores. From what I hear, folks from Texas are driving in to make their purchases. Anyways, there's a licensed store within walking distance from my home. Maybe I'll meet some composers from Texas there.


It's legal in Massachusetts....


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> I have noticed that there are huge cultural differences concerning what is too much alcohol. In Ukraine and Russia consumption that we (British, American) would consider excessive is seen as fairly normal for them. Several great Russian musicians have praised vodka as an essential - Rostropovich famously so. In China if you visit an official you will be expected to drink a shot or two with him. It doesn't matter if it is early in the morning. Norms vary.


Yes. It also changed over time, like with smoking. Smoking in Germany changed radically within only about 10 years since the mid/late 1990s), from being allowed as a default to being forbidden as a default (and this included the rise of smoking age from 16 to 18 in a time that became more liberal in many other things, including other drugs and usually lowering age limits). When I was in school in the 1980s, there was an officially designated smoking area on the school yard and unless a teacher knew exactly or person looked like 12 the teachers would not check if students were already 16 or only 15. 
There was also often free beer on a day after the graduation when there was a tradition for the graduating class to block the entrances of the school and do other mischief (which became tolerated as kind of tradition). I remember that they forbid the beer for a few years after a 9th grader got so intoxicated he had to be taken to a hospital but I am pretty sure it was relaxed again later and only announced that they should be more careful not giving too much beer to youngsters.
Hard liquor is (maybe except regionally) not used as liberally but it was perfectly normal to have a beer or two in your lunch break at work (and maybe still is in some regions and some fields of work). My little playmobil toy construction workers in the 1970s did have little green beer bottles and nobody batted an eye about that.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I don't do substances man, I do life!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> I don't do substances man, I do life!


So do some folks in prison.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> And there's a *pretty famous picture* that I'm unable to dredge up on the web, of *Birgit Nilsson playing cards* during a break at Bayreuty, with London, Windgassen, Frick, and Hotter. The men are all smoking, and there's a smoky haze that doesn't seem to concern Birgit very much.











Thomas Stewart, Wolfgang Windgassen, Birgit Nilsson, Hans Hotter & Gottlob Frick


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I suppose the subject here concerns states of consciousness - which, whether under the influence of chemicals or not, change for each of us constantly. I have often found that one of the best moods (states of consciousness) for really concentrating on music that is new to me comes when I am driving long distance. I know (because we have discussed it before) that many others don't find this or are even of the opinion that it is dangerous! But for me listening to music while under the influence of driving is an excellent experience. I think it is about doing something dull and repetitive while also retaining full awareness of potential needs to urgently take some sort of action.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I used to partake of a bit of cannabis from time to time while listening to music.

I don't any more, but I do have to admit, it certainly has some music enhancing capabilities. Plenty of brain science to back this up.

https://www.mic.com/articles/141296/here-s-why-music-sounds-so-much-better-when-you-re-high-according-to-science

https://www.cbc.ca/music/read/why-does-music-sound-good-when-you-re-high-1.5064839

I also have had some profound experiences with mushrooms and music, but this was in my pre-classical days. Mostly with prog and a bit of jazz.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Would the composers or the performers of CM be pleased if they knew their works were heard by people with deliberately impaired brain function? I get all the juice from music with a cleanly-functioning mind--tears, joy, tears of joy. The only music I know that is deliberately to be heard under the influence is the Semuta music of _Dune_


Not all drugs impair the brain. Alcohol, opioids, amphetamines, barbiturate's, certainly do.

But cannabis and psychedelics do not. At least in the way I believe you are referring to. They temporarily suppress certain parts of the brain, but enhance others.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I used to smoke quite a bit of 'draw' back in the 80s and up to the kids being born. It did enhance musical experiences for me (and my friends) but I got fed up with the lethargy that came with cannabis. I'm not a sit-still type of person so it wasn't an ideal drug for me. I do enjoy a couple of drinks with music and feel it does enhance live gigs, in particular, but any more than a few and it gets in the way.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Merl said:


> I used to smoke quite a bit of 'draw' back in the 80s and up to the kids being born. It did enhance musical experiences for me (and my friends) *but I got fed up with the lethargy that came with cannabis*. I'm not a sit-still type of person so it wasn't an ideal drug for me. I do enjoy a couple of drinks with music and feel it does enhance live gigs, in particular, but any more than a few and it gets in the way.


That was my main reason for quitting.

I also noticed a bit of short term memory loss. Which I recovered within a few weeks of quitting. I don't miss it. It's been decades.

I actually no longer consume any sort of drug.

Although, I really miss mushrooms.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> Not all drugs impair the brain. Alcohol, opioids, amphetamines, barbiturate's, certainly do.
> 
> But cannabis and psychedelics do not. At least in the way I believe you are referring to. They temporarily suppress certain parts of the brain, but enhance others.


A quick scan of Internet articles suggest that we don't know for sure that cannabis use doesn't impair brain function over time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Merl said:


> I used to smoke quite a bit of 'draw' back in the 80s and up to the kids being born. It did enhance musical experiences for me (and my friends) but I got fed up with the lethargy that came with cannabis. I'm not a sit-still type of person so it wasn't an ideal drug for me.


Not all cannabis is of the sit-still type; some types are rather exhilarating.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Forster said:


> A quick scan of Internet articles suggest that we don't know for sure that cannabis use doesn't impair brain function over time.


Yeah. this is probably closer to current facts.

My statement was more referring to impairment while currently under the influence.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> *Not all cannabis is of the sit-still type; some types are rather exhilarating.*


Kind of explains why you can manage 9 games simultaneously while I can barely manage the one without losing my temper at least twice a day - :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> As a working musician your gigs are in bars, with liquor readily available, often for free. Plus during breaks it is not uncommon (understatement) for patrons to offer you other things ... After a while we became used to performing with some kind of buzz and made a joke, *"in order to play stoned, you have to practice stoned."*


It's actually not a joke, but a fairly well researched phenomenon called state dependent learning. One of my wives learned to play pool in bars while more or less intoxicated (after work in a theater group). Ever after her game markedly improved after a couple of beers - and I was a reliable witness as I don't drink.

I spent a year as an acid head when i was 15-16 years of age. I still remember the impression Beethoven's _Eroica_, Brahms' Fourth, and a number of other works made on me under the influence of LSD. These were profound listening experiences for me. The best trip I had was the last one, when I heard King Crimson's _Larks' Tongues in Aspic_ for the first time under the influence of two hits of microdot. The understanding of that music I came to that day convinced me to renounce all drugs, find new friends, and change my life completely.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Picked the wrong time to quit...:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> Not all drugs impair the brain. Alcohol, opioids, amphetamines, barbiturate's, certainly do.
> 
> But cannabis and psychedelics do not. At least in the way I believe you are referring to. They temporarily suppress certain parts of the brain, but enhance others.


As a longtime teetotaler who used to do weed, I found that it too impaired the brain. I am happy with my brain as it is, and have been so for many decades. But, within the law and common sense, everyone is entitled to the brain they enjoy.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Forster said:


> A quick scan of Internet articles suggest that we don't know for sure that cannabis use doesn't impair brain function over time.


It's safe to say that consistent long-term use probably takes a toll on the brain. But that really doesn't matter; people often do what they like regardless of the risk and/or consequences.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Red Terror said:


> It's safe to say that consistent long-term use probably takes a toll on the brain. But that really doesn't matter; people often do what they like regardless of the risk and/or consequences.


I have a couple of daily dope smoking friends who seem oblivious to the fact they are perma-stoned.

It's like they're a 7" being played at 33 1/3 rpm… GROOVEy baby!

I am happy to knock back 6 bottles of Nanny State (0.5% alc) a night… and wake up in the morning' clean…


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

It's enlightening to hear peoples' opinions about experiencing music with drugs, because they readily admit that they've never had the experience. What is it that they could know about it? They believe there's impairment of musical understandings?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> It's safe to say that consistent long-term use probably takes a toll on the brain. But that really doesn't matter; people often do what they like regardless of the risk and/or consequences.


Well I'm not here to warn people about consequences, only to offer a more accurate picture than that presented by Simon Moon - which he acknowledged.

It's interesting that some who report to have been under the influence claim to have some kind of heightened experience - not just a different one.

This seems at odds with the extent to which people will argue the toss about which conductor's interpretation is the best: the search for some kind of combo of accuracy and perfection in a performance is undermined by the willingness to be in some kind of altered state when listening.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> New Mexico now allows the selling of weed for recreational purposes at licensed stores. From what I hear, folks from Texas are driving in to make their purchases. Anyways, there's a licensed store within walking distance from my home. Maybe I'll meet some composers from Texas there.


If it just started I'd advise staying off the roads as much as possible for 3 or 4 months. The problem with edibles is you might wait an hour and feel nothing. Then pow! 
Or a newbie will mistakenly eat more without waiting for effects to fully manifest. They go out and then all of a sudden they just want to get home, but they can't...


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> Well I'm not here to warn people about consequences, only to offer a more accurate picture than that presented by Simon Moon - which he acknowledged.
> 
> It's interesting that some who report to have been under the influence claim to have some kind of heightened experience - not just a different one.
> 
> This seems at odds with the extent to which people will argue the toss about which conductor's interpretation is the best: the search for some kind of combo of accuracy and perfection in a performance is undermined by the willingness to be in some kind of altered state when listening.


That's what I mean about posters saying enlightening things (post #76). Did you hear this experience from someone who was high in a situation like that?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> It's actually not a joke, but a fairly well researched phenomenon called state dependent learning. One of my wives learned to play pool in bars while more or less intoxicated (after work in a theater group). Ever after her game markedly improved after a couple of beers - and I was a reliable witness as I don't drink.
> 
> I spent a year as an acid head when i was 15-16 years of age. I still remember the impression Beethoven's _Eroica_, Brahms' Fourth, and a number of other works made on me under the influence of LSD. These were profound listening experiences for me. The best trip I had was the last one, when I heard King Crimson's _Larks' Tongues in Aspic_ for the first time under the influence of two hits of microdot. The understanding of that music I came to that day convinced me to renounce all drugs, find new friends, and change my life completely.


Interesting. When we're very young trips like that really surprise us (from within ourselves, and the realization that it might've been there all the time before). When we get old we try to avoid such intense 'surprises' (I know I do). I just want feel a little differently when I revisit a listening destination. I don't want to lose all my normal references.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> That's what I mean about posters saying enlightening things (post #76). Did you hear this experience from someone who was high in a situation like that?


Yeah, well I'm taking claims of 'enlightenment' (re the music) with a pinch of salt. EB's enlightenment that he should stop taking drugs is something else.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> The only common drug for most of European history until the mid-19th century was alcohol. And while there were certainly lots of composers, musicians and listeners who drank too much, I am not aware of a custom to get drunk before or during a classical concert or opera, unlike with weed and other more recent drugs and popular music of the last 70 years. There might also have been circles in the 19th and 20th century who used opiates or other drugs in combination with classical music, but I have never heard of any. I'd also think that many recreational drugs would be detrimental to performance, except maybe amphetamines and nicotine (tobacco was of course used in abundance and not even considered a vice until recently) and this would be a bigger problem in classical music than more loosely organized/improvised music.
> So there are several cultural and musical reasons why classical music would be considerably different, I think.
> 
> Although I grew up in the 1970s and 80s when tobacco smoke was still almost everywhere I nevertheless am surprised that it must have been worse in the early/mid 20th century with artists sporting cigarettes on publicity fotos and during rehearsals (with ashtrays next to music stands or on the piano...)


There was study that indicated that there was something in cigarette smoke (not the nicotine) which forestalls the onset of dementia in some folks. It would be the same chemical in smoking papers. But I haven't heard anything more about it, so maybe there were errors in the study.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> There was study that indicated that there was something in cigarette smoke (not the nicotine) which forestalls the onset of dementia in some folks. It would be the same chemical in smoking papers. But I haven't heard anything more about it, so maybe there were errors in the study.


https://www.brightfocus.org/alzheimers/article/smoking-good-or-bad-dementia-prevention



> Early studies exploring the risk for dementia among smokers concluded that smoking actually decreased the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's disease.[SUP]2[/SUP] Later reviews have suggested that these studies were biased, possibly because of researchers' connections to the tobacco industry.[SUP]2[/SUP]* If smoking reduces the risk of dementia in later years, it accomplishes this by shortening life…but that is not a very comforting thought*.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> Yeah, well I'm taking claims of 'enlightenment' (re the music) with a pinch of salt. EB's enlightenment that he should stop taking drugs is something else.


He renounced them... I've never had such an intense episode. I don't know what it's like..

Drugs and morality. If I've never tried it, can I still have moral issues with it? It's the same as other sins.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Drugs and morality. If I've never tried it, can I still have moral issues with it? It's the same as other sins.


It's not a 'sin' to take drugs (IMO, YMMV). It may be ill-advised to excess, or when engaging in activity that requires a clearer mind than drug-taking allows, but I see no question of morality arising from the mere fact of taking drugs.

Legality of course depends on the jurisdiction where you take them!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> It's not a 'sin' to take drugs (IMO, YMMV). It may be ill-advised to excess, or when engaging in activity that requires a clearer mind than drug-taking allows, but I see no question of morality arising from the mere fact of taking drugs.
> 
> Legality of course depends on the jurisdiction where you take them!


It's immoral to take any drug, since you might hurt yourself or others.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> It's immoral to take any drug, since you might hurt yourself or others.


I think I already allowed for the issue of harm. Supping a beer in the comfort of one's own home or at a bar with friends is not immoral.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> It's not a 'sin' to take drugs (IMO, YMMV). It may be ill-advised to excess, or when engaging in activity that requires a clearer mind than drug-taking allows, but I see no question of morality arising from the mere fact of taking drugs.
> 
> Legality of course depends on the jurisdiction where you take them!


Having seen first hand where drug taking can lead to, I would consider it foolish to go down that path.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

marlow said:


> Having seen first hand where drug taking can lead to, I would consider it foolish to go down that path.


Hence my 'ill-advised'...under certain circumstances.

However, what we're supposed to be talking about is not the morality or legality of drugs and alcohol but their impact on listening to music.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

There is a significant negative stigma around drugs, hard and soft. 

Even Prince got involved in this moral panic, when sang about his lil cousin starting on reefer and six months later he’s doing horse.

Truth be told everything is fine in moderation. 

A multibillion lives, both direct and indirect, have been destroyed by alcohol, nicotine and gambling than have or ever will be destroyed by drugs…


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)




----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

marlow said:


> Having seen first hand where drug taking can lead to, I would consider it foolish to go down that path.


I have also seen harm done by a variety of "drugs" - alcohol, cannabis, opiates, hallucinogenics, stimulants, "downers" etc - and have even done quite a lot of work in drug harm reduction programmes. I think the two big sources of harm are alcohol and opiates. The downsides of all the various substances and the risks involved to users are all very different and the proportion of casual users of each of them who come to harm varies considerably between them. Lumping them together ends up giving young people interested in experimenting a dangerous lack of information. They see one part of the information to be wrong and assume it all is. The types of harm, the extent of the risk and the behaviour needed to minimise those risks vary considerably between substances.

As for moral wrong, the main moral wrong I can see derives from patronising criminal enterprises that are often very nasty. A more enlightened legal framework for dealing with drugs. Many experts in the field argue that laws related to drugs do a lot more harm than the drugs themselves.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> The problem with edibles is you might wait an hour and feel nothing. Then pow!.


That brings back memories…


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> *The problem with edibles is you might wait an hour and feel nothing. Then pow! *


Never more so than when those "edibles" are either shrink-wrapped supermarket sushi

or a breakfast burrito bought from a street vendor...


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> As for moral wrong, the main moral wrong I can see derives from patronising criminal enterprises that are often very nasty. A more enlightened legal framework for dealing with drugs. Many experts in the field argue that laws related to drugs do a lot more harm than the drugs themselves.


Law does not concern itself with morality. If it did, half of the laws on the books would have to be rescinded.

"But mostly they debate how the human animal can be inducted to or forced to obey this code, blandly ignoring the high probability that the heartaches and tragedies they see all around them originate in the code itself rather than failure to abide by the code." 
- Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

gregorx said:


> Law does not concern itself with morality.


I think you'll find it does, but it's a complicated business, discerning the morality of the law makers.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Ludwig Schon said:


> A multibillion lives, both direct and indirect, have been destroyed by alcohol, nicotine and gambling than have or ever will be destroyed by drugs…


All potentially and so sadly often addictive. Unless one has an inherent sense of moderation, of will, it is best for many people to avoid all possible addictions (other than air, food, and CM).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> ..... I think the two big sources of harm are alcohol and opiates.


Agreed - these are the most addictive, and most destructive overall...back in the early 70s, I did a few years of emergency medical work [ambulance EMT] - IIRC, at least 85% of emergency calls involved alcohol - either victim, perpetrator, environment - excessive alcohol consumption was a constant....also plenty of heroin ODs....junkies taking shots of junk far stronger than their usual - these poor souls would be dead, with a half-full needle still sticking in their arm....



> Lumping them together ends up giving young people interested in experimenting a dangerous lack of information. They see one part of the information to be wrong and assume it all is. The types of harm, the extent of the risk and the behaviour needed to minimise those risks vary considerably between substances.


Yes, for sure!! Back in the 60s, when pot began to make its way extensively into white suburbia, college campuses, "middle class" America, the drug enforcement people committed exactly that ill-advised foolishness, as in:

<<_Smoking pot leads straight to heroin!!>> <<All heroin addicts once smoked pot>> <<pot is the gateway to narcotics>>_, etc, etc...
Of course, any 5th or 6th grader knew this was bulls*t, so basically the entire presentation was discredited, ridiculed, disregarded...
<<_All heroin users once smoked pot_>> was easily countered with <<_All alcoholics once drank milk_>> so by the same logic, milk drinking is the gateway to, leads straight to alcoholism!! ridiculous, of course....


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> Hence my 'ill-advised'...under certain circumstances.
> 
> However, what we're supposed to be talking about is not the morality or legality of drugs and alcohol but their impact on listening to music.


I get enough enjoyment out of listening to music without drugs or alcohol. Why are you someone would want to deaden their senses with them is quite beyond me unless it's to help them forget the dreadful reality they think they are living in.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Tbh, I am always listening under the influence.

Because I am addicted... to music


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

marlow said:


> I get enough enjoyment out of listening to music without drugs or alcohol. Why are you someone would want to deaden their senses with them is quite beyond me unless it's to help them forget the dreadful reality they think they are living in.


Why don't you read posts more carefully? Where did I say that I want to deaden my senses [etc]?

My post that you quote was merely to remind those who'd wandered off topic what the thread title is about, and that morality has nothing to do with it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> Not all drugs impair the brain. Alcohol, opioids, amphetamines, barbiturate's, certainly do.
> 
> But cannabis and psychedelics do not. At least in the way I believe you are referring to. They temporarily suppress certain parts of the brain, but enhance others.


There is real concern and some worrisome evidence about the effect of cannabis on the developing teenage brain. There is also evidence of long term effects on things such as verbal memory in adults with frequent use. Not to mention concern with heavy use by people with mental disorders.

However, occasional use in adults does not appear to cause much in the way of serious long-term effects, contrary to increasing evidence concerning alcohol.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

As some would say, "everything in moderation", or - more medically - "the dose makes the poison".

I figure some of you may have personal experience with friends or family members, but alcohol is one of the worst drugs as far as dependence goes. Only the abuse of prescription benzodiazepines (i.e. Xanax, Valium) are as bad when it comes to _physical_ dependence - quitting alcohol should be done with the help of a doctor, because unlike other, even "harder" drugs, such as cocaine, MDMA, or even painkillers - quitting alcohol can have serious health consequences up to death when done unsupervised.

The enhancing effects of drugs on music are relatively well-known, though. Even those attending a classical concert may enjoy a few glasses of wine beforehand. of course, this is to say nothing of music which is almost explicitly written _to_ be consumed with drugs....


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

4chamberedklavier said:


> Tbh, I am always listening under the influence.
> 
> Because I am addicted... to music


! Love that man, awesome.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> Why don't you read posts more carefully? Where did I say that I want to deaden my senses [etc]?
> 
> My post that you quote was merely to remind those who'd wandered off topic what the thread title is about, and that morality has nothing to do with it.


With respect it may have been you need to write your posts more carefully to avoid misunderstanding. I also need to write my post more carefully as I was actually meaning in general terms rather than you personally. So apologies for any misunderstanding


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> There is real concern and some worrisome evidence about the effect of cannabis on the developing teenage brain. There is also evidence of long term effects on things such as verbal memory in adults with frequent use. Not to mention concern with heavy use by people with mental disorders.
> 
> However, occasional use in adults does not appear to cause much in the way of serious long-term effects, contrary to increasing evidence concerning alcohol.


Having worked with people who suffer psychotic episodes due to suspected use of cannabis I would advise people to avoid it


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> Interesting. When we're very young trips like that really surprise us (from within ourselves, and the realization that it might've been there all the time before). When we get old we try to avoid such intense 'surprises' (I know I do). I just want feel a little differently when I revisit a listening destination. I don't want to lose all my normal references.


The effects of LSD are unpredictable and very individual to different people. In my case, when I was a teen, the principal effect on appreciation seems to have been to strip away all habits of thought and prejudices about music and to concentrate my attention on what I was hearing. I think it made me more open and objective in a way. But then I was never really closed off from classical music so reawakening to it would surely have occurred in any case.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> The effects of LSD are unpredictable and very individual to different people.


I never performed while taking LSD, but one of my friends, a very prominent, well-known musician, who has held a major orchestra position for years once performed Mahler Sym #4 [major orchestra] while tripping on acid....Wow!! I can't imagine - that is a demanding part....you've got to get and keep your head in the game....

Of course, musicians have been performing under the influence of alcohol for as long as music has existed....
all sorts of drugs have been prevalent too, esp in jazz and rock....

Sadly, some very talented major symphony musicians have essentially "drank themselves out of a job"....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> I never performed while taking LSD, but one of my friends, a very prominent, well-known musician, who has held a major orchestra position for years once performed Mahler Sym #4 [major orchestra] while tripping on acid....Wow!! I can't imagine - that is a demanding part....you've got to get and keep your head in the game....
> 
> Of course, musicians have been performing under the influence of alcohol for as long as music has existed....
> all sorts of drugs have been prevalent too, esp in jazz and rock....
> ...


In 1970 Doc Ellis of the Pittsburgh Pirates famously pitched a no-hitter while tripping on LSD. There's nothing surprising about this. The drug doesn't affect coordination or decision making in any direct way. If one loves doing what one is doing and is happy and willing to concentrate on it, LSD might even improve ones performance. But it's unpredictable. If ones mind is not in the right place, one might have no ability to tie ones shoes and might end up in a hospital with a full psychotic break instead. I assume your friend got through it okay than?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink alcohol. I spent most of my adult life as an overweight man and would like to get below 200 pounds now that my doctor is saying that blood pressure, cholesterol, and sugar levels are running high (they call it pre-diabetes). The only problem is that, as with my taste in music, I have a sweet-tooth and I love Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff as much as I love cake, cookies, pie, etc. 

I never had a taste for drugs, alcohol, and smoking, though. I was always inclined to spend limited funds on records and then later CDs. Why buy a six-pack or a bottle of wine and have it for a short time, when I can get a Beethoven or Mozart CD and have it for the rest of my life? 

Someone here identified classical music as a drug of choice and with me it has been something of an addiction. If some of you are like me then you have a wife or partner who has said many times, "How many CDs do you need?" I just say that "I'm a collector." Apart from psychological research indicating how music impacts chemicals in the brain, the "feel-good" neurotransmitters, music has always served me well as a reminder that there is always some beauty in this weary world.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> In 1970 Doc Ellis of the Pittsburgh Pirates famously pitched a no-hitter while tripping on LSD. There's nothing surprising about this. The drug doesn't affect coordination or decision making in any direct way. If one loves doing what one is doing and is happy and willing to concentrate on it, LSD might even improve ones performance. But it's unpredictable. If ones mind is not in the right place, one might have no ability to tie ones shoes and might end up in a hospital with a full psychotic break instead. I assume your friend got through it okay than?


It's true that LSD doesn't cause physical impairment....to me, the issue would be sensory distraction...your mind would be on overload while you're trying to concentrate on a very demanding process that requires full attention...playing while on LSD mIght be a real kick for a relatively easy, undemanding part...but Mahler 4?? That's no cakewalk, there are some challenges, for sure. He did fine....i heard the concert....sounded terrific.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

marlow said:


> I get enough enjoyment out of listening to music without drugs or alcohol. Why are you someone would want to deaden their senses with them is quite beyond me unless it's to help them forget the dreadful reality they think they are living in.


They want the most out of life and they'll chance it. It's usually ok, but there's always exceptions. What are the odds?

What do you miss if you refrain?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> They want the most out of life and they'll chance it. It's usually ok, but there's always exceptions. What are the odds?
> 
> What do you miss if you refrain?


The question is not, or should not be, what one misses by not using any sort of mind-altering agents. It should be whether one loses or diminishes one's mental/judgemental qualities and a crisp, clear mind by using such agents. What am I missing if I refrain from tobacco or gambling?


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Strange Magic said:


> The question is not, or should not be, what one misses by not using any sort of mind-altering agents. It should be whether one loses or diminishes one's mental/judgemental qualities and a crisp, clear mind by using such agents. What am I missing if I refrain from tobacco or gambling?


Lung cancer and poverty maybe? There are quite a number of prominent musicians who have succumbed to these various complaints.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

marlow said:


> Lung cancer and poverty maybe? There are quite a number of prominent musicians who have succumbed to these various complaints.


Exactly. One loses nothing of real value by abstaining from body-altering or mind-altering agents.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

if you don't do it too often it can be fun


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> if you don't do it too often it can be fun


And since we're keyed to 'repopulate' the world - men need the variations in sexual experience as they get older. Light drugs do that.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> And since we're keyed to 'repopulate' the world - men need the variations in sexual experience as they get older. Light drugs do that.


Is it because we wish to "repopulate the world" that we have sex, and like it, or is it because sex feels (or ought to feel) really good? In animals, it is a Basic Instinct. In humans, not so much--the desire for pleasure far outweighs instinctive drive, hence the widespread use of counter-pregnancy agents/methods among both males and females.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Exactly. One loses nothing of real value by abstaining from body-altering or mind-altering agents.


Drugs and carcinogens might re-educate our thymuses so that cancer-recognizing immune cells aren't destroyed by mistake. Our thymus which we inherited long ago is a fascinating evolutionary development. In its haphazard way it gets the job done, AND it changes through the decades to address the threat of cancer, until we get so old that we're of no use to our species.

We just don't know enough about the non-stop complex chemistry - and so many relationships and interactions. But I'm not getting my hopes up about a safe stimulation of thymus function..


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Is it because we wish to "repopulate the world" that we have sex, and like it, or is it because sex feels (or ought to feel) really good? In animals, it is a Basic Instinct. In humans, not so much--the desire for pleasure far outweighs instinctive drive, hence the widespread use of counter-pregnancy agents/methods among both males and females.


Heh, whether it's 'instinct', the way we're keyed by NS or the pleasure principle, men need the variations in sexual experience as they get older.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Exactly. One loses nothing of real value by abstaining from body-altering or mind-altering agents.


How do you know how sharp you are unless you have something to compare it to? Two different states of your mind, logical/confident and the other - tirelessly exploring patterns/insights we never 'think' about.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> How do you know how sharp you are unless you have something to compare it to? Two different states of your mind, logical/confident and the other - tirelessly exploring patterns/insights we never 'think' about.


I don't know about you, but I have no evidence to believe that I cannot be simultaneously in both modes. Or that there even are two such separate modes.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know about you, but I have no evidence to believe that I cannot be simultaneously in both modes. Or that there even are two such separate modes.


So your answer to the question (which I didn't expect) is that you tirelessly explore patterns and insights etc. that we never think about. I haven't been able to do that.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> *The question is not, or should not be, what one misses by not using any sort of mind-altering agents. It should be whether one loses or diminishes one's mental/judgemental qualities and a crisp, clear mind by using such agents. * What am I missing if I refrain from tobacco or gambling?


I would not trade my experiences with using entheogens (mushrooms, DMT, Peyote) for anything.

They were enlightening in the extreme, profound, incredibly connecting (internally and externally), and yes, fun.

I haven't taken any of them for decades, but they have certainly effected me in pretty profound ways.

And, at the age of 65, I am still working in advanced networking environments for a major biotec company in California, with the necessity of having a sharp mind.

Not all 'elicit' drugs can be lumped in together, in their effect on the body or mind, and addictiveness.

Not only that, but micro-dosing LSD and psilocybin have been shown to very effective in treating depression, ptsd, anxiety, alcohol abuse, quitting smoking, and more.

Ayahuasca has been shown to cure alcoholism with only one experience. It also seems to have a very positive effect on people with CTE. Quite a few ex pro athletes with CTE who were close to being suicidal, are now living happy lives after their ayahuasca experiences.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/research/psychedelics-research.html


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Luchesi:Believe what you will about altering the natural state of your brain. I prefer the brain nature gave me, and am no worse for wear. I remain quite happy with my thinking as it is, for an old geezer like myself.

^^^^Luchesi, tirelessly? I don't think so. That's asking a lot. Besides, it is difficult to explore things we never think about.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Some ongoing confusion between drugs taken for medicial purposes and those taken for recreational purposes.

Or is it not so much 'confusion' as 'justification'?

Anyway, whilst I don't doubt that non-prescription drugs can have some interesting effects, nor do I doubt the wonderful time had by those who've taken them, my preference, like SM's, is for a clear mind.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I haven't done any serious hallucinogens since I was sixteen years old, but I learned enough from the experience to know that the way the issue is being framed here, that is, focusing on whether one condition is better, clearer, or more natural than the other, is myopic and beside any useful point. No one who has enjoyed hearing music in an altered state is advocating listening in this way habitually. It's not an either or situation. There can be value in the mere fact of hearing music from different perspectives. Listening in an altered state can snap one out of ones normal habits of thought and make one hear a composer or style in a new light. It doesn't necessarily matter whether it's a clearer or more lucid state, only that it's a different one. Even if the state in which one finally appreciates the beauty of Josquin is an hallucinatory stupor, it's possible that the appreciation one comes to will carry over into sober life and that one will have gained something of value — or at least be more open to the possibility.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> the way the issue is being framed here, that is, focusing on whether one condition is better, clearer, or more natural than the other, is myopic and beside any useful point.


Well that seems a tad harsh - but then Edward, you are only posting with your customary directness!

It's quite simple. My experience of taking drugs is thin (of being with other people taking drugs more substantial) but enough for me to know that I'm not interested in the pursuit, regardless of what benefits others might claim for it. If my distinction of 'clear/not clear' doesn't suit, let's just stick with 'unaltered by drugs'.

Is that better?


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> "history suggests Berlioz composed at least a portion of it (symphonie fantastique) under the influence of opium."


That 3rd movement of SF certainly sounds like Ol’ Hector was in a catatonic state


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Forster said:


> Well that seems a tad harsh - but then Edward, you are only posting with your customary directness!
> 
> It's quite simple. My experience of taking drugs is thin (of being with other people taking drugs more substantial) but enough for me to know that I'm not interested in the pursuit, regardless of what benefits others might claim for it. If my distinction of 'clear/not clear' doesn't suit, let's just stick with 'unaltered by drugs'.
> 
> Is that better?


If that was how I felt I would just say I don't want to risk damage to my brain and body by using drugs regardless of any elusive potential benefits — which is pretty much the way I feel about it now. That would make more sense than describing an experience one has not had as listening with an unclear mind or in other terms implying impairment when one isn't in a position to actually know much about it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

When I listen ('impaired') to familiar pop songs the joy is magnified. But CM is often too intense for me. I'd rather be entertained by fare which is mostly intended to uplift with simplicity or perhaps illicit some youthful 'energy'. It (the positive feelings and naivate) becomes experiential internally. 
With CM I feel that I'm too close to the composer's spiritual singing to finish following a whole movement.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I've experienced all sorts of mind-altering drugs, back in the days....[never narcotics]...reefer is my only input nowadays. It can provide a really enlightening listening experience...for me anyway, there is something about a heightened awareness, an ability to focus right in on the sounds being produced that I find enjoyable....listening to an entire work, or a whole movement, undistracted is relaxing and enjoyable....having retired within the last year, I'm finding that sitting back, relaxing, really getting into the music is a somewhat unforeseen pleasure, that I really enjoy.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> When I listen ('impaired') to familiar pop songs the joy is magnified. But CM is often too intense for me. I'd rather be entertained by fare which is mostly intended to uplift with simplicity or perhaps illicit some youthful 'energy'. It (the positive feelings and naivate) becomes experiential internally.
> With CM I feel that I'm too close to the composer's spiritual singing to finish following a whole movement.


That should be elicit some youthful energy


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I note that everyone taking part in this discussion gives me the impression--the impression, mind you--of being on their best, most lucid and rational behavior in order to be clearly understood. And that they do wish to be understood. One could draw an inference from that. One might also infer a disquietude in the confidence of some that their minds are or were not fully up to the task of properly interfacing with the world and needed some sort of aid in order to do so. I exclude those under the care of a physician, then or now, and taking prescribed substances.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

A little alcohol is fine, but when drunk I usually incline towards simple old singalong Irish and Scottish folk. Harder substances would only be for dance/electronic music. 

The substance that gets my classical juices flowing the most would be caffeine: a cup of coffee is always great to go with a string quartet.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

According to Wagner, the drug was his own music. He thought Tristan could drive people insane and could be highly toxic.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It's been many decades since I read Henry Miller's _Tropic of Cancer_, but, as I recall, somewhere within its pages Miller remarks that "Ravel could have driven us all mad" with Boléro.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

We could jam in Joe's Garage
His mama was screamin'
His dad was mad
We was playin' the same old song
In the afternoon 'n' sometimes we would
Play it all night long
It was all we knew, 'n' easy too
So we wouldn't get it wrong
All we did was bend the string like...

Hey! Down in Joe's Garage
We didn't have no dope or LSD
But a coupla quartsa beer
Would fix it so the intonation
Would not offend yer ear
And the same old chords goin' over 'n' over
Became a symphony
We would play it again 'n' again 'n' again
'Cause it sounded good to me
ONE MORE TIME!

--- Joe's Garage (MOI)


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

I found that when I smoked pot, my ability to play percussion was severely impaired. On the other hand, a few cups of coffee did wonders for my speed when rocking & jazzing out on my drums to a favorite CD or two.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> It's been many decades since I read Henry Miller's _Tropic of Cancer_, but, as I recall, somewhere within its pages Miller remarks that "Ravel could have driven us all mad" with Boléro.


Of course we don't really see or hear anything. Our brain, with the use of its natural drugs, completes the picture or the conceptual trail of sound vibrations. So therefore every waking experience is a drug trip.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

I guess everybody must have run out of drugs....


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Chibi Ubu said:


> I guess everybody must have run out of drugs....


I didn't want to ever tell my parents, but I doubt that I would be a pianist today without those early drug experiences. 

I really ’heard’ Schnabel's left hand for the first time, and the popping precision of Gould, wow. Such intelligence!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I didn't want to ever tell my parents, but I doubt that I would be a pianist today without those early drug experiences.
> 
> I really ’heard’ Schnabel's left hand for the first time, and the popping precision of Gould, wow. Such intelligence!


I'll bet that professional pianists or other CM musicians hope that they go on stage with the mind of a surgeon. I hope that anyone I need to depend upon or closely interact with has a clear brain--nobody wants to appear in court with a stoned lawyer.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll bet that professional pianists or other CM musicians hope that they go on stage with the mind of a surgeon. I hope that anyone I need to depend upon or closely interact with has a clear brain--nobody wants to appear in court with a stoned lawyer.


I'll bet you don't believe that we have a clearer mind for music when our brains are inhibited and enhanced (cycling between the two).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I'll bet you don't believe that we have a clearer mind for music when our brains are inhibited and enhanced (cycling between the two).


I'll bet you are correct that I don't believe that if you are referring to drugs.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Looks like gambling (betting) is becoming our drug of choice.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll bet you are correct that I don't believe that if you are referring to drugs.


That brings up the question to me, were JSB and Mozart experiencing the natural brain chemicals their brains were producing in excess, compared to the rest of us? All the greats had no need for the help of outside drugs? Their brains (due to their experiences) were slightly different in this regard.

And I do think we get farther away from the ideal (our natural state of producing rewarding chemicals) the more we indulge. 

For everything you lose you gain something AND vice versa. I think it was Emerson.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Coach G said:


> The only problem is that, as with my taste in music, I have a sweet-tooth and I love Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff as much as I love cake, cookies, pie, etc.


You must be a sugar addict like my wife... 

My original addiction was and still is sugar. I became diabetic as a reward. Oh well, at least I defeated lady nicotine after 26 years, and that one could not have occurred faster. It's been 25 years since I walked away from emphysema...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Chibi Ubu said:


> You must be a sugar addict like my wife...
> 
> My original addiction was and still is sugar. I became diabetic as a reward. Oh well, at least I defeated lady nicotine after 26 years, and that one could not have occurred faster. It's been 25 years since I walked away from emphysema...


I quit cigarettes on June 25, 1983 cold turkey and finally gained freedom.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> There was study that indicated that there was something in cigarette smoke (not the nicotine) which forestalls the onset of dementia in some folks. It would be the same chemical in smoking papers. But I haven't heard anything more about it, so maybe there were errors in the study.


I'm fairly certain it is the nicotine that does that. Nicotine has been sadly and falsely demonized because of its association with cigarettes, but the danger of cigarettes isn't in the nicotine, it's in all the other chemicals and in the combustion. By itself there's not even evidence that nicotine is addictive: its addictive potential seems to be a combination of its rapid delivery method via cigarettes (it's like a shot of adrenaline to your brain) as well as all the other chemicals that make it more addictive than it would otherwise be. By itself, nicotine is just a stimulant similar to caffeine and can actually have a protective effect on certain aspects of brain functioning.

Yeah, here's a link to an article on the research: Can nicotine protect the aging brain?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> The question is not, or should not be, what one misses by not using any sort of mind-altering agents. It should be whether one loses or diminishes one's mental/judgemental qualities and a crisp, clear mind by using such agents. What am I missing if I refrain from tobacco or gambling?


Probably not missing anything from refraining from tobacco, but you might've missed a lucrative career if you have the right mind for skill-based gambling games. My primary career over the past ~20 years has been poker. 

However, I do think there's a question of what one is/isn't missing by trying mind-altering substances, but the potential rewards have to be weighed with the risks. I have no desire to go anywhere near dangerous, addictive substances--alcohol, cocaine, heroin, benzos--but a moderate use of cannabis? Sure, especially when it has actual medical benefits (taking it before a workout greatly reduces the pain/inflammation afterwards, for one example).


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> but the danger of cigarettes isn't in the nicotine, it's in all the other chemicals and in the combustion


Nicotine destroys the heart by damaging the electrical wiring of the heart muscle. Nicotine is rat poison. The other chemicals in the smoke cause COPD/Emphysema & cancer, as well as other damaging effects. Smoking tobacco is slow motion suicide.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Chibi Ubu said:


> Nicotine destroys the heart by damaging the electrical wiring of the heart muscle. Nicotine is rat poison. The other chemicals in the smoke cause COPD/Emphysema & cancer, as well as other damaging effects. Smoking tobacco is slow motion suicide.


Please post any evidence that nicotine by itself, separated from cigarettes, and taken in methods other than combustion (eg, vaping, patches, gum) does these things. Nicotine is only rat poison in high doses, and most anything in high doses (including water) can be poisonous. Yes, SMOKING tobacco is slow-motion suicide. AFAIK, the evidence for the dangers of nicotine outside of smoking is minimal and, at best, correlational. EG, I know some studies that show a correlation between vaping and increases risk of heart attacks, but it did not control for all variables and was based around surveys, which are subject to many biases. Even if there is cause there, it could also be the vaping itself that's dangerous rather than the nicotine because I'm fairly certain there are Swedish (IIRC) studies of long-term use of a chewable nicotine that did now show long-term health problems.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

As for myself I very much enjoy music on cannabis, but it's a tricky thing because I'm quite sensitive to its psycho-active effects: too much causes me terrible anxiety and makes me miserable until the "peak" of the high wears off; but just the right amount enhances the music's effect greatly to the point where it feels like I'm IN the music, aware of and observing every nuance and riding the wave of emotional currents. There's just less "distance" between me and the music. Contrary to popular belief I've found that it's much easier to concentrate on things when high, at least at moderate doses. Too high a dose and my brain goes into dreaming-while-awake mode where I can't remember what happened 5 seconds ago. 

Edibles are especially precarious because they take a long time to take effect and, unlike vaping/smoking cannabis, which releases Delta-9 THC, edibles metabolize to 11-hydroxy-THC, which is up to 5x more psychoactive than Delta-9 and crosses the blood-brain barrier much more efficiently. On top of that, the effect of edibles last anywhere from double to quadruple that of smoking/vaping, and it's also a bit of a crapshoot for how much much will metabolize and take effect, so they're REALLY unpredictable. I feel like many of the bad initial experiences people have had with cannabis, especially now after legalization, have come from thinking edibles are a "safer" alternative to smoking or vaping... maybe safer in one respect, but much more of a gamble in terms of the effect they'll have. I'm lucky in that when I had my first "bad edible experience" I knew enough about what to expect that, at least consciously, I knew I would be OK eventually, but there's nothing quite like having an existential crisis due to being uncomfortably high.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

You could post your “evidence “ to the other wise about nicotine 
Nicotine is a known poison. I m hearing what a tobacco company representative may say.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Chibi Ubu said:


> You could post your “evidence “ to the other wise about nicotine
> Nicotine is a known poison. I m hearing what a tobacco company representative may say.


I can't show a lack of evidence, you can only show evidence. 

Yes, in high enough doses almost anything can be poisonous. If nicotine was toxic in all doses they couldn't experiment on rats/mice with it, but they do. I'm curious what "tobacco company representatives" you've heard say "smoking tobacco is slow-motion suicide" as I said in agreeing with you. The point is that the dangers of smoking are well-established, those of nicotine outside smoking cigarettes in other forms are not. It may be that nicotine carries with it health risks, but what they are, how serious compared to smoking, etc. is up for debate and further study. Here's one such study on smokeless tobacco (which is, it must be said, not the only way to get nicotine) on the matter that notes contradictory findings:


> Smokeless tobacco (ST) delivers as much nicotine to the systemic circulation as does cigarette smoking, albeit with slower absorption (21). Worldwide, ST exists in many forms, but the best epidemiologic studies of smokeless tobacco and CV health have been conducted in Sweden, where 25% of men use a form of ST called snus. Non-invasive studies of the extent of atherosclerosis, using carotid intimal wall thickness, found the expected increase among smokers, but no difference between snus users and non-smokers. Case control studies in Sweden have shown no increased risk of myocardial infarction or stroke, but a small and statistically significant increased case fatality rate for both among snus users compared to non-tobacco using controls. In contrast the a large cohort study in the United States and the InterHeart study of smokeless tobacco users in many countries around the world did find an association between ST and myocardial infarction (26, 27). The explanation for discrepant findings may be differences in ST products or other CV risk factors in various regions of the world. A recent Swedish study raises concern about nicotine safety in people with CVD. Among survivors of acute myocardial infarction who were snus users at the time of the event, those who continued to use snus after the event had a significantly higher mortality compared to those who quit.(28) This study suggests that nicotine may be hazardous in patient with CAD. Smokeless tobacco has also been reported to increase in the risk of heart failure, but unlike cigarette smoking does not increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. (29, 30) The American Heart Association reviewed the cardiovascular risk of ST and concluded that while ST most likely conveys less cardiovascular risk than smoking, it still poses some CV risk and recommended against it use in patients with cardiovascular disease. (21)


So it may be that nicotine (or, at least, smokeless tobacco) is only dangerous for people who already have CVD. 

FWIW I have no dog in this fight. I don't smoke, don't vape, don't use nicotine. I tried it for a bit many years back but found it worsened my GERD.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Weed is now legal in New Jersey. It will make me an even more defensive driver. The addition of weed to gambling just adds to the burden on the unwary and naive. I worked for years with people whose marginal wealth was consumed in addictive behavior. And what of the incidence of various mouth and throat cancers due to chewing tobacco? I'll stick with teetotal.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Yahoo!!! for legal weed  Some of us are bright enough to stay home when we imbibe...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Weed is now legal in New Jersey. It will make me an even more defensive driver. The addition of weed to gambling just adds to the burden on the unwary and naive. I worked for years with people whose marginal wealth was consumed in addictive behavior. And what of the incidence of various mouth and throat cancers due to chewing tobacco? I'll stick with teetotal.


The statistics on the dangers of driving high are much less conclusive or robust as those driving drunk. Drinking impairs your ability to drive in ways that cannabis doesn't except at very high doses, but most people who get to that state either couldn't or wouldn't have an interest in driving anyway. The one time I got "that high" I was well aware I was in no condition to drive, what with barely being able to stand up straight. Drinking, apart from impairing your motor skills, also impairs your judgment and decision making, which is why so many people don't realize when they're drunk and think themselves OK to drive. Cannabis isn't like this. When you get really high you are 100% aware of it, and if you ever took so much that you were unaware you'd probably be unconscious by that point.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

There is a proposal working its way through various jurisdictions in New Jersey to forbid police officers from smoking or otherwise using weed, anywhere, anytime, on the job or off. This is to prevent police arrests/testimony to be challenged and thrown out due to questions about the full sobriety/acuity/judgement of the arresting officer. We will see how it fares.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

There's no fight.... just opinions.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Here's some interesting info from AZDHS as printed on the label of the flower buds I have in front of me. It says "Marijuana use can be addictive and can impair an individual's ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate heavy equipment. Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and can lead to an increase for cancer, tachycardia, hypertension, heart attack, and lung infection. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN." I guess they ought to publish their research, no?

In case you are wondering, the answer is no. AZDHS is the government, and the government never lies.

Nicotine is incredibly addictive, so much so that many cannot beat the addiction, and lung and heart disease seems to be the most likely outcome for those who don't quit. I've even seen nicotine being compared to heroin as to the severity of the addiction. On another note, what I have seen about vaping and "popcorn" lungs is scary as hell!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The statistics on the dangers of driving high are much less conclusive or robust as those driving drunk. Drinking impairs your ability to drive in ways that cannabis doesn't except at very high doses, but most people who get to that state either couldn't or wouldn't have an interest in driving anyway. The one time I got "that high" I was well aware I was in no condition to drive, what with barely being able to stand up straight. Drinking, apart from impairing your motor skills, also impairs your judgment and decision making, which is why so many people don't realize when they're drunk and think themselves OK to drive. Cannabis isn't like this. When you get really high you are 100% aware of it, and if you ever took so much that you were unaware you'd probably be unconscious by that point.


That's true but I wonder how thorough the research was. People who are high tend to be cautious drivers - they tend to see spaces that they can easily fit through as being too narrow, for example - but I suspect they can become confused if they are negotiating a new and complex route (the narrowing of short term memory and the capacity to take account of multiple factors suggests this) and that this can probably lead to dangerous driving.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Cannabis Use Disorder is an area of concern by New York State, according to a WNYC interview with the NY State office of addiction issues. Here's a statement on CUD:

"Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a diagnosis given for problematic marijuana use. CUD was introduced in the _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition_ or DSM 5. (The previous DSM edition separated problematic use into two different disorders: cannabis abuse and cannabis dependence.)

Cannabis use disorder affects roughly 10% of the 193 million cannabis users in the world,1
and it captures the possibility that people can be negatively impacted by marijuana use without necessarily being addicted. However, it also has room to recognize cannabis addiction if it occurs."

People can legally use weed any way they want; I am not a fanatic on the subject. But given a choice between a few anecdotal accounts of weed's harmlessness and summed data, I'll believe the summed data and continue to drive defensively and be concerned about anyone who has my safety in their hands.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think I prefer sobriety in the end.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think drugs can help artists think creatively, but I think the natural way to be creative is to reach Nirvana where beautiful ideas can flow in and out of ones mind.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Chibi Ubu said:


> Here's some interesting info from AZDHS as printed on the label of the flower buds I have in front of me. It says "Marijuana use can be addictive and can impair an individual's ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate heavy equipment. Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and can lead to an increase for cancer, tachycardia, hypertension, heart attack, and lung infection. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN." I guess they ought to publish their research, no?


I would at least like to see the research these are conclusions are based on, yes. One problem with studying cannabis is that different strains effect different people differently at different doses. It's a biphasic drug, which means it can have opposite effects at different doses, and people build up tolerances so that the effects can lessen with consistent use. It's a much more difficult drug to make definitive laws about because of this variability in how it effects users. However, I certainly wouldn't like the prospect of naive users getting way too high and driving, but, hell, my dad's been a heavy cannabis smoker for decades and has never had a single accident. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but, again, I don't know of any definitive statistical studies on this either. 



Chibi Ubu said:


> Nicotine is incredibly addictive, so much so that many cannot beat the addiction, and lung and heart disease seems to be the most likely outcome for those who don't quit. I've even seen nicotine being compared to heroin as to the severity of the addiction. On another note, what I have seen about vaping and "popcorn" lungs is scary as hell!


Again, this is only true of nicotine in the context of cigarettes. One reason nicotine gum and patches are so ineffective is because they don't feed the addiction that comes with smoking nicotine via cigarettes. There's also very few cases of people being addicted to nicotine gum and patches compared to cigarettes. A quick Google search turns up the statistic of only 5-10% of users reporting an "addiction" to nicotine gum, and that even after years of use there are no studies suggesting CV problems and such, and the main complaint about the addiction seems to be the price: Addicted to Nicorette


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Cannabis Use Disorder is an area of concern by New York State, according to a WNYC interview with the NY State office of addiction issues. Here's a statement on CUD:
> 
> "Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a diagnosis given for problematic marijuana use. CUD was introduced in the _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition_ or DSM 5. (The previous DSM edition separated problematic use into two different disorders: cannabis abuse and cannabis dependence.)
> 
> ...


People can develop unhealthy habits with just about anything, and there's a big difference between unhealthy "chronic use disorders"--which are usually underpinned by various psychological or life problems--and addiction in which substances change the brain in physical ways so that there are cravings, tolerance, withdrawals, risk of overdose, and other serious health complications. Anyone who's ever witnessed someone addicted to cigarettes, benzos, alcohol, etc. will immediately recognize the difference between that and something like cannabis. If someone is having trouble quitting cannabis, it's not because of the cannabis it's because they've become psychologically reliant on the habit for some reason. I have the same argument against those who try to demonize pornography and claim it's addictive and detrimental to health, but mostly what I see in the research on that is, likewise, unhealthy use in some individuals that is frequently underpinned by other psychological conditions (as well as the classic problem of distinguishing correlation from causation). 

Of course, the question I have is: what does the "summed data" actually say on cannabis? As much as we know about it there were decades where it was very difficult to study because of its classification as a Class-A drug. Now that legalization is rolling out across the US I expect we'll have more robust statistics in the upcoming years. I'm open to whatever the research says, but unless there are definitive long-term health effects even at moderate doses I don't expect I'll be stopping as I get too many tangible benefits from it. 

Here's an interesting fact most people don't know about cannabis: the "runner's high" that some people experience with long-term, physically taxing workouts is almost identical to the high caused by the THC in cannabis. Our bodies produce endogenous cannabinoids called anandamide (which is nearly identical in structure and function to THC) that can be released as our bodies' means of allowing us to push through such physical exhaustion. The effect has also been studies in rats that if you suppress this endocannabinoid it lessens the painkilling affects of exercise. So it's likely that our bodies natural cannabinoids are pretty crucial in the feel-good after effects of exercise: The 'runner's high' may result from molecules called cannabinoids – the body's own version of THC and CBD


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I prefer sobriety in the end.



Well, let me say, I enjoy getting high on Delta 8 which is legal, but I'm not dependent on it. I simply enjoy it!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EY, I have no problems with natural cannabinoids generated within the body, Regarding pornography, you are probably correct in that getting good statistics is likely difficult. But I can understand the possibility, and, switching to anecdotal testimony this time around (lacking summed data), it appears to either be possibly addictive and/or to provide unhealthy, unrealistic expectations of what is expected of oneself or one's partner(s). I do not support banning it but would support some sort of monitoring of the sort in intent as regulating prostitution. You and I are virtually immune to the deleterious effects of these various addictions and predilections as are all right-minded TC members, but some will fall prey and be consumed, leaving society to deal with the consequences.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> EY, I have no problems with natural cannabinoids generated within the body, Regarding pornography, you are probably correct in that getting good statistics is likely difficult. But I can understand the possibility, and, switching to anecdotal testimony this time around (lacking summed data), it appears to either be possibly addictive and/or to provide unhealthy, unrealistic expectations of what is expected of oneself or one's partner(s). I do not support banning it but would support some sort of monitoring of the sort in intent as regulating prostitution. You and I are virtually immune to the deleterious effects of these various addictions and predilections as are all right-minded TC members, but some will fall prey and be consumed, leaving society to deal with the consequences.


The vast majority of legitimate complaints surrounding pornography stem from the abysmal sex education in America in which parents and teachers are scared poopless of having honest and factual discussions about these topics. All it would take would be explaining that pornography is fantasy entertainment by and for consenting adults, not a model for real life sex or relationships, and many of these problems would disappear; but instead kids and young teens are left to their own devices to learn about sex on their own and don't have the knowledge to distinguish fiction from reality. That's lamentable, but so are the various attempts at demonizing pornography (typically by religious and conservative groups, but not always: someone like Gary Wilson seemed a well-meaning but science-illiterate sort) backed up by, as you're fond of saying, "thin gruel" science; that in turn makes me lament at how poorly most people understand science and rational thinking, and many would rather just use both to support their biases and what they want to believe is true. 

But that's my rant for the day.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Well, let me say, I enjoy getting high on Delta 8 which is legal, but I'm not dependent on it. I simply enjoy it!


I need to check on Delta 8 myself. I hear it's like Delta 9 but much mellower and less likely to lead to the more undesirable effects of getting too high. Though I've gotten pretty adjusted to Delta 9 by now, at least with strains I'm familiar with, there's always the possibility of going a bit too far and having a not-fun time.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I need to check on Delta 8 myself. I hear it's like Delta 9 but much mellower and less likely to lead to the more undesirable effects of getting too high. Though I've gotten pretty adjusted to Delta 9 by now, at least with strains I'm familiar with, there's always the possibility of going a bit too far and having a not-fun time.


Delta whah? Did I miss a fun new drug? Seriously, what is it?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Delta whah? Did I miss a fun new drug? Seriously, what is it?


THC is the active ingredient in cannabis but there are different forms of it. Delta 9 is the more traditional version. Delta 8 is similar but less potent and so better for users who are sensitive to its effects. It's possible to breed strains that are almost exclusively one or the other, or strains that are exclusively CBD (which is a different cannabinoid that doesn't get you high at all). When ingested, cannabis actually metabolizes to 11-hydroxy-THC , which is up to 5x more potent than even Delta 9, which is why so many "cannabis horror stories" involve edibles. Cannabis is a rather complex plant and there's even more to it and its effects besides the main psycho-active ingredients, like the presence of terpenes and flavanoids that have actual health benefits.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *Eva Yojimbo;* "All it would take would be explaining that pornography is fantasy entertainment by and for consenting adults, not a model for real life sex or relationships, and many of these problems would disappear; but instead kids and young teens are left to their own devices to learn about sex on their own and don't have the knowledge to distinguish fiction from reality."


It would be a challenge to successfully do this simple thing--"all it would take...."--I am trying to think of a scenario whereby this is accomplished. Age of kids and teens; whether they are shown both the softest of porn and its more extreme forms. And would the sociology and history of porn actors be part of the instruction? Like prostitution, there is a mixed record of the degree to which porn actors "willingly" enter into the industry. Things to ponder.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> It would be a challenge to successfully do this simple thing--"all it would take...."--I am trying to think of a scenario whereby this is accomplished. Age of kids and teens; whether they are shown both the softest of porn and its more extreme forms. And would the sociology and history of porn actors be part of the instruction? Like prostitution, there is a mixed record of the degree to which porn actors "willingly" enter into the industry. Things to ponder.


I think it's less of a challenge than many think. The biggest challenge is parents getting over their uncomfortableness of talking to (their) kids about sex. We teach kids to distinguish fantasy from reality with few issues when it comes to movies and TV, so it shouldn't be all that different with pornography. I lean towards doing it younger rather than later. Kids now are growing up using the internet, and it's ridiculously easy to stumble onto pornography even unintentionally. Better to educate them before that, and I see/know of of no harms in teaching kids about sex "too early." As for what should be shown, I'm not sure if anything would need to be shown. Just inform kids that any sex videos they find online is likely to be fantasy and not reality, similar to how WWE is a "fantasy" version of MMA. If they're interested in learning the differences then showing them would be OK, but I think still images would work, but it's also worth telling them how "performative" pornography is. However much adult stars are genuinely having sex, they're also performing for a camera... again, not unlike professional wrestling. 

I don't think we need to go into the sociology and history of porn or performers. The industry didn't come from the best of roots, but from what I know it's radically different now: very professional and very corporate, with a handful of huge companies owning the majority of production studies, all of which have HR departments that don't take kindly to any claims of abuse. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that has a bad reputation enough without abusing performers or forcing people to be there when they don't want to be. In fact, so many performers are now producing and profiting from their own content on platforms like OnlyFans, which has caused the "mainstream studio" side of the industry to cater to performers even more because the industry needs performers far more than the reverse. The myth of the "sleezy producer preying on naive and unsuspecting girls" (notice how it's always girls; there's the misogynistic assumption that men can enter the industry of their own volition but women dislike sex, lack agency, and must all be coerced into it) is mostly just that; a myth. Most girls get into the industry because they know someone else in the industry, or because they've worked in other aspects of sex work (like stripping) and want to get in, or because they're simply curious in which case they send photographs to agents.

Things were different in the late-70s/early-80s when pornography was very much a kind of guerilla form of filmmaking with no regulation that attracted a lot of low-life types. Stories like that of Linda Lovelace are well-known (and even that story was as much about an abusive/controlling husband than anything), but we're talking about 40+ years by this point. Pornography is far more ethical now than it ever has been, at least in the US and in the mainstream.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*^^^^@EY: *I agree largely with what you post above, but I wonder to what extent pornography is to be presented to the young as a career option, though it surely is if no coercion or financial necessity drives people into the business. I also am concerned about non-regulated, non-US or other non-western countries' methods of bringing 18-year old (?) teens into the industry. And I'd like to see (in theory; not necessarily from you) a prospective curriculum or real parental guide to offer enlightened views to the young, including age and other relevant social and developmental factors. There is no question--or very little--that a mature and mentally healthy adult can benefit from select pornography--B.F. Skinner, the psychologist author of _Walden Two_ (who remembers that book now?) said in his old age that pornography was a way for him to age more robustly, along with good friends, good books, good music, etc.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> *^^^^@EY: *I agree largely with what you post above, but I wonder to what extent pornography is to be presented to the young as a career option, though it surely is if no coercion or financial necessity drives people into the business. I also am concerned about non-regulated, non-US or other non-western countries' methods of bringing 18-year old (?) teens into the industry. And I'd like to see (in theory; not necessarily from you) a prospective curriculum or real parental guide to offer enlightened views to the young, including age and other relevant social and developmental factors. There is no question--or very little--that a mature and mentally healthy adult can benefit from select pornography--B.F. Skinner, the psychologist author of _Walden Two_ (who remembers that book now?) said in his old age that pornography was a way for him to age more robustly, along with good friends, good books, good music, etc.


What I would say about presenting it as a career option would be very individual-dependent. 99.9% of people are probably not cut-out for that industry, but there are a handful of people that seem to have the right confluence of personal and personality traits--high libido, high energy, charismatic, loves to perform, loves sex, not bashful/shameful/etc., very open to alternative lifestyles, etc.--that it's perfect for. Of course, plenty more may find they're more comfortable cultivating small(er) audiences online and living off donations and private requests, too. 

Yes, other countries are of more of a concern ethically, and I've heard more than one adult performer say that even though Europe also has many ethical companies there are many much shadier ones too. About the only thing that can be done about that from here is if American companies try to self-regulate how much it shows up and is easily accessible online here. I'd wager the vast majority of the free-pornography "tube" sites though feature content from "ethically-sourced" (lol) producers and studios, especially since the "great database wipe" a while back (due to some people uploading clearly illegal vids to these sites!). About the only way you can stop such people is not letting them make an easy living out of it so that they stop. 

I would also like to see a prospective curriculum guide, preferably once that's based on legitimate research rather than moral and other various fear-based "concerns" about "corrupting children" with information about sex and pornography. Repression is just never IMO a good option.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I'll finish my thoughts here by further examining how either pornography or prostitution should be presented to the young as career choices. Are such to be swept into a general mass like Manufacturing, Retail, Finance, Science, Accounting, sheet metal worker, MRI technician, in our desire to destigmatize the two Ps? Or should some few be called to the side and counseled that, because of their looks, freshness, boldness, etc., they might ponder P or P as viable careers? A tricky situation.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Contrary to popular belief I've found that it's much easier to concentrate on things when high, at least at moderate doses. Too high a dose and my brain goes into dreaming-while-awake mode where I can't remember what happened 5 seconds ago.


I have been going back through some of the posts in this thread - particularly yours - and this little segment reminded me of my studying method when I was at university. I would frequently get high while reading quite involved scientific papers. I would find my mind wondering off after a while but I would use this to "imagine" what would come next in the scientist's argument and would then read on. If I was right then that made it much clearer and quite memorable. If the paper went in a different direction to the one I had imagined (which was often the case) then I would find myself much better able to understand the argument and also its counter-arguments. It was a very effective way to study!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll finish my thoughts here by further examining how either pornography or prostitution should be presented to the young as career choices. Are such to be swept into a general mass like Manufacturing, Retail, Finance, Science, Accounting, sheet metal worker, MRI technician, in our desire to destigmatize the two Ps? Or should some few be called to the side and counseled that, because of their looks, freshness, boldness, etc., they might ponder P or P as viable careers? A tricky situation.


Viable careers have opportunities for advancement. In prostitution and pornography aging leads to less interest. Such work might suit students who need to pay their ways through college but as a career? I don't think so but could be wrong.

I did know a woman of about 30 who paid for her PhD (in some form of astrophysics) by advertising her services to men who like to be treated like babies. This work did not involve her in offering sex but did mean being comfortable spending some time with some pretty weird men. I don't know how she tolerated it but can say that as soon as she got her doctorate she got a "proper job" in her field. One thing she needed when she was offering her mothering services was someone nearby who would ensure her safety if she was dealing with a dangerous madman.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I have been going back through some of the posts in this thread - particularly yours - and this little segment reminded me of my studying method when I was at university. I would frequently get high while reading quite involved scientific papers. I would find my mind wondering off after a while but I would use this to "imagine" what would come next in the scientist's argument and would then read on. If I was right then that made it much clearer and quite memorable. If the paper went in a different direction to the one I had imagined (which was often the case) then I would find myself much better able to understand the argument and also its counter-arguments. It was a very effective way to study!


I have not tried studying while high but I could definitely imagine this approach working. I find when I'm high I'm more in tune with the details of my thought processes and those of others... it seems as if I'm able to perceive and intuit things on a more granular level rather than just trying to understand and react to more superficial aspects.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll finish my thoughts here by further examining how either pornography or prostitution should be presented to the young as career choices. Are such to be swept into a general mass like Manufacturing, Retail, Finance, Science, Accounting, sheet metal worker, MRI technician, in our desire to destigmatize the two Ps? Or should some few be called to the side and counseled that, because of their looks, freshness, boldness, etc., they might ponder P or P as viable careers? A tricky situation.


I have two issues with presenting them as career choices: one is what I said above about the vast majority of people not being cut out for either. It takes very unique and specific types to really make either a career choice; two is that it can be rough-going after you've been in either industry for a while as audiences (and clients) are liable to prefer new faces. There's exceptions to this, especially since the popularization of the "MILF" genre that's shown that older performers can absolutely attract fans/viewers too, but it's uncommon for girls to be able to make that transition. It's not unlike trying to be an actor or a musician in some respects given the uncertainty of future prospects even if you do obtain some small level of success. 

What I DO think is more viable is for it to be a temporary means of making money for future planning. One such example would be Jenna Haze who took the money she made from pornography and is now pursuing a degree in psychology. Given the financial burden that's placed on so many young people when they get into debt from college it's actually a much smarter choice to seek out temporary professions like pornography where you can make a significant amount of money over, say, a year or two and then put that money towards college rather than incurring huge debts leading to years of financial struggle. The only downside is that this kind of future planning isn't something most young people (and even many older people) aren't good at or savvy about. 

All that said, I have no issue completely destigmatizing porn and prostitution and the people that work in either. I see all sex work as a viable choice, but like with music or acting whether it's viable as a career is very dubious. IME, the performers who really succeed in pornography long-term are those that genuinely love it, and that passion comes through in their work. Most viewers quickly grow bored of girls who don't really want to be there, are only doing it for the money, etc. as that apathy shows in their performances.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I've heard that the more you're exposed to a carcinogen it will prime your cancer fighting system (which is a little stronger while we're young and might need priming).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I've heard that the more you're exposed to a carcinogen it will prime your cancer fighting system (which is a little stronger while we're young and might need priming).


Strange what one hears. What you've heard is music to the ears of corporations and industrial chemists. It is conceivable that some slight exposure might prime one's immune response system, but surely " the more you're exposed" is a non-starter. Citing some research would be useful here.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^@EY: a sad commentary on the world (country) we inhabit when P or P is a way of delivering oneself from student debt. Surely we can do better. We definitely need data here rather than individual instances or anecdotes. As an aside, one shudders at the possible fate that awaits a number of Ukrainian refugee mothers and daughters, like the youth of Thailand. Not a pretty picture.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^@EY: a sad commentary on the world (country) we inhabit when P or P is a way of delivering oneself from student debt. Surely we can do better. We definitely need data here rather than individual instances or anecdotes. As an aside, one shudders at the possible fate that awaits a number of Ukrainian refugee mothers and daughters, like the youth of Thailand. Not a pretty picture.


I think it's a sad state of affairs that the natural act of trying to better one's self through education that will help establish a career path almost necessitates the incurring of crippling debt at all. I think we would probably agree that entire system needs fixing; but until it's fixed students (or prospective students) need money to survive, and P&P are two legitimate ways of doing that. Maybe not the best choices for everyone, but nothing is.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Listening to _*Parsifal*_ on Ketamine was beyond profound. An indescribable experience of both pure ecstasy and deepest pain. For a glorious while there... its meaning and significance was all made crystal clear to me, though I have since lost it. And I have never wanted to *ever* venture to repeat the experience. I felt like an unworthy sinner who had stumbled into the Holy of Holies. Touched the Ark of the Covenant. Do that sort of thing too often and you will soon find yourself no longer able to function in the humdrum of everyday life.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Strange what one hears. What you've heard is music to the ears of corporations and industrial chemists. It is conceivable that some slight exposure might prime one's immune response system, but surely " the more you're exposed" is a non-starter. Citing some research would be useful here.


Yes, it probably can't be researched, can it? 

The human immune system makes what we would call mistakes, and it sometimes doesn't turn on, and sometimes it comes on too powerfully and does damage. In simple statements... ..But in reality it's a large complex chemistry with many moving parts, which change and change back again due to the feedbacks and thresholds of mysterious chemical signals. Nothing has been thought out, so we can't follow the thinking.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it probably can't be researched, can it?
> 
> The human immune system makes what we would call mistakes, and it sometimes doesn't turn on, and sometimes it comes on too powerfully and does damage. In simple statements... ..But in reality it's a large complex chemistry with many moving parts, which change and change back again due to the feedbacks and thresholds of mysterious chemical signals. Nothing has been thought out, so we can't follow the thinking.


I'll defer to the MDs and biochemists in the group, but it's pretty clear that repeated or intensified exposure to carcinogens often leads to cancer. Ask asbestos workers or the Marlboro Man.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think it's a sad state of affairs that the natural act of trying to better one's self through education that will help establish a career path almost necessitates the incurring of crippling debt at all. I think we would probably agree that entire system needs fixing; but until it's fixed students (or prospective students) need money to survive, and P&P are two legitimate ways of doing that. Maybe not the best choices for everyone, but nothing is.


The current culture in the US is vampiric. Free individuals undertaking natural acts of betterment are only missed opportunities for the blood suckers. Get those fangs in early and keep them in. Debt slaves and rent slaves are its natural products. Personal equity and freedom are its enemies.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> The current culture in the US is vampiric. Free individuals undertaking natural acts of betterment are only missed opportunities for the blood suckers. Get those fangs in early and keep them in. Debt slaves and rent slaves are its natural products. Personal equity and freedom are its enemies.


Also slaves to opioids, meth, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, gambling--all ways of trying to feel good or feel in control in an extremely poorly-educated and grotesquely unequal society.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll defer to the MDs and biochemists in the group, but it's pretty clear that repeated or intensified exposure to carcinogens often leads to cancer. Ask asbestos workers or the Marlboro Man.


Yes. But if we succeed in removing carcinogens from our lives, then when we do accidentally get exposed a decade later?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

For those of you who do smoke weed, do you prefer to smoke just one type at a time or mix them up? My preference is a good mix that results in a better high for musical enjoyment.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Also slaves to opioids, meth, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, gambling--all ways of trying to feel good or feel in control in an extremely poorly-educated and grotesquely unequal society.


Add benzos to that list. I've had family members addicted to benzos (by prescription) and watching them withdraw from them was horrific, far worse than even alcohol and cigarettes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> For those of you who do smoke weed, do you prefer to smoke just one type at a time or mix them up? My preference is a good mix that results in a better high for musical enjoyment.


Do you mean mixing strains? I generally prefer to just use one strain at a time because it's easier for me to titrate to the right dose. I should also mention that I vape it rather than smoke it, so that way I avoid all of the carcinogens that come from combustion. Vaping is just a much "cleaner" way to imbibe.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes. But if we succeed in removing carcinogens from our lives, then when we do accidentally get exposed a decade later?


How do we remove carcinogens from our lives? There's always cosmic rays and other natural radiation. Had to do radon remediation before I could sell my house.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Do you mean mixing strains? I generally prefer to just use one strain at a time because it's easier for me to titrate to the right dose.


Yes, mixing strains. Is there a right dose? I just smoke until I don't want anymore.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Yes, mixing strains. Is there a right dose? I just smoke until I don't want anymore.


There's a "right dose" for me because I'm very sensitive to the psychoactive effects of THC and there's a thin line between "a fun, great, time" and "anxiety-induced existential panic." Luckily that line has thickened as I've adjusted to the effects over the years, but a few really bad highs made a big enough impression that I don't want to revisit them.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's a "right dose" for me because I'm very sensitive to the psychoactive effects of THC and there's a thin line between "a fun, great, time" and "anxiety-induced existential panic." Luckily that line has thickened as I've adjusted to the effects over the years, but a few really bad highs made a big enough impression that I don't want to revisit them.


Got it. I've been lucky - over 50 years and never had a bad high.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Got it. I've been lucky - over 50 years and never had a bad high.


Not sure what your typical dosage is, but edibles are the easiest way to get "too high" due to their very unpredictable nature. If you eat a lot and most of the THC metabolizes in your system (as opposed to being destroyed by your stomach acids) then it can hit like a punch from Tyson in his prime. Of course, different subjectivities will react differently to being in that state. I didn't realize I was the "existential panic" type until it happened! Your years of experience will probably help in that you likely have a higher tolerance and are more adjusted to such altered states. My "too high" experiences happened shortly after I started trying it. I've been cautious ever since.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not sure what your typical dosage is, but edibles are the easiest way to get "too high" due to their very unpredictable nature. If you eat a lot and most of the THC metabolizes in your system (as opposed to being destroyed by your stomach acids) then it can hit like a punch from Tyson in his prime. Of course, different subjectivities will react differently to being in that state. I didn't realize I was the "existential panic" type until it happened! Your years of experience will probably help in that you likely have a higher tolerance and are more adjusted to such altered states. My "too high" experiences happened shortly after I started trying it. I've been cautious ever since.


Sounds a little complicated. I fill my pipe and smoke until I'm satisfied; I do wait a few minutes after each hit to get an "updated" profile of the situation. 

Anyways, classical music sounds great when completely sober and twice as great under the influence.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Sounds a little complicated. I fill my pipe and smoke until I'm satisfied; I do wait a few minutes after each hit to get an "updated" profile of the situation.
> 
> Anyways, classical music sounds great when completely sober and twice as great under the influence.


I wouldn't say edibles are complicated (just eat and wait), but the effects are unpredictable. Smoking/Vaping is more predictable and less potent.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The classic mistake with edibles is that they take a while to "kick in", so people accidentally re-dose.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> The classic mistake with edibles is that they take a while to "kick in", so people accidentally re-dose.


True, but even without that edibles are very unpredictable. First time I tried them was with the "firecracker" method, basically putting some cannabis between graham crackers, chocolate, and peanut butter, and baking them. One day I had 1/4 of one and felt nothing; the next day I had another 1/4 and was in the shower when I was literally knocked backwards, tunnel visioned, too dizzy to stand, mind in dreaming-while-awake mode... and it's not just because the two 1/4s were in different amounts: I literally measured/weighed the amount of cannabis up and split them evenly. It's just that one day it all got metabolized and the other day it didn't.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Yes I agree edibles are scary. Very unpredictable. Depending on the manufacture the quality control is poor. They’re risky. I’d much rather smoke. Much easier to control.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

My worst high was actually when I smoked too much - no bad mental issues but I had severe vertigo for several hours. Not fun.

The most "artistic" drug of modern times, LSD is infamously unpredictable - not knowing what you'll get is sort of part of the "interest" in that, though it's generally an _interesting _time when listening to music - in my experiences the most unpredictable part were emotional responses - very strange to experience absolute soul-crushing sadness almost vicariously (not a fun trip though the mood rapidly shifted) 



If you don't want predictability just take ecstacy.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Sounds a little complicated. I fill my pipe and smoke until I'm satisfied; I do wait a few minutes after each hit to get an "updated" profile of the situation.
> 
> Anyways, classical music sounds great when completely sober and twice as great under the influence.


If you can listen to CM and it doesn't become too tense, then this might explain why no bad trips. Something about your body or your outlook makes it easier to just get enough every time. 
I haven't tried in long time to listen to CM. It gets too intense, too true, as they say..

I switch to pop and jazz, get wowed, and then very quickly I want to play. And that's when the fun really begins! You can be a 'version' of yourself in your playing, OR you can play very eccentrically and sentimentally. There's so many things flashing through your mind from past musical experiences.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Bulldog said:


> Got it. I've been lucky - over 50 years and never had a bad high.


Some people have all the luck 🤪


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> If you don't want predictability just take ecstacy.


That's why I would never try it. It is an amphetamine derivative, I believe!😜


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> My worst high was actually when I smoked too much - no bad mental issues but I had severe vertigo for several hours. Not fun.


I've read the vertigo is due to cannabis being a vasodilator. The expansion of blood vessels leads to a drop in blood pressure, which leads to the vertigo for the same reason as standing up too fast can (called postural hypotension). The "cure" is, perhaps counter-intuitively, to get up and walk/run around, because exercise will help raise your blood pressure. When this happened to me the worst thing was trying to sit still and feeling everything spin. 



fbjim said:


> The most "artistic" drug of modern times, LSD is infamously unpredictable - not knowing what you'll get is sort of part of the "interest" in that, though it's generally an _interesting _time when listening to music - in my experiences the most unpredictable part were emotional responses - very strange to experience absolute soul-crushing sadness almost vicariously (not a fun trip though the mood rapidly shifted)


I think DMT is taking over that role from LSD, though I don't know how aware one can be of music while on it. The kind of experiences people describe on DMT range from hellishly nightmarish to the most spiritual and enlightening, and it often resembles descriptions of near-death experiences. I'm fascinated with the idea but probably too chicken to ever actually try it.


----------



## AaronSF (Sep 5, 2021)

All recreational drugs have the potential to enhance sensory experiences (not just listening to music). Most of my use was a long time ago when I was in college. LSD was our drug of choice back then, and I remember purposefully "tripping" while listening to classical music to see what happened. I'd create programs of music to listen to. Sometimes it was phenomenal, sometimes not...but with LSD the experience was limited to the "trip" itself, and very little of that experience carried over into every-day life. It was like a far-off memory of visiting a foreign land. I recall a particularly intense "trip" with Scriabin, and I've never liked the "Poeme d'extase" more than in that altered state. But listening to Scriabin sober, while enjoyable, was not the expansive experience it was on LSD. 

That said, I haven't done any hallucinogens since then and don't plan to! They are just too heavy duty. I do a little pot now and again, and it can enhance the listening experience, but it's important to buy THC products at a legit dispensary where the quantity of THC in edibles, for instance, is precise and predictable. Notably I cannot really function productively on THC (e.g., can't practice the piano), so I limit my THC use to the occasional fun listening session (and sometimes to help with arthritis pain).


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The kind of experiences people describe on DMT range from hellishly nightmarish to the most spiritual and enlightening, and it often resembles descriptions of near-death experiences. I'm fascinated with the idea but probably too chicken to ever actually try it.


There is no probably here, I am chicken!!! I've had a time or two with LSD/Mescaline, and a few other combos that were not at all good. And that will stay in the past.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Strange Magic said:


> How do we remove carcinogens from our lives? There's always cosmic rays and other natural radiation. Had to do radon remediation before I could sell my house.


Joe Jackson - Cancer


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Chibi Ubu said:


> There is no probably here, I am chicken!!! I've had a time or two with LSD/Mescaline, and a few other combos that were not at all good. And that will stay in the past.


While I really have no interest in most psychedelics, DMT does give me pause if only because so many people come out of with such life-changing positive experiences. I've heard that most "negative" experiences come from people trying to "hold on" to conscious control and fighting against the drug trying to take them wherever it wants to take them. But people have described such wondrous experiences being on the stuff. Apparently the guy who did the illustration in some of Tool's (the rock band) covert arts/booklets was inspired by his DMT experiences:








Lots of people have described meetings with gods, extra-terrestrials, or what's commonly called the "machine elves," or jesters... but basically other conscious life-forms that seem to know everything about you. My own hunch is that these experiences represent some part of our brain that is capable of conceiving of ourselves as a separate entity, so essentially we're meeting ourselves, and a lot of people learn a lot from that encounter because that "us" may know a lot about the "us" we try to suppress, hide, run from, escape, etc.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

AaronSF said:


> All recreational drugs have the potential to enhance sensory experiences (not just listening to music). Most of my use was a long time ago when I was in college. LSD was our drug of choice back then, and I remember purposefully "tripping" while listening to classical music to see what happened. I'd create programs of music to listen to. Sometimes it was phenomenal, sometimes not...but with LSD the experience was limited to the "trip" itself, and very little of that experience carried over into every-day life. It was like a far-off memory of visiting a foreign land. I recall a particularly intense "trip" with Scriabin, and I've never liked the "Poeme d'extase" more than in that altered state. But listening to Scriabin sober, while enjoyable, was not the expansive experience it was on LSD.
> 
> That said, I haven't done any hallucinogens since then and don't plan to! They are just too heavy duty. I do a little pot now and again, and it can enhance the listening experience, but it's important to buy THC products at a legit dispensary where the quantity of THC in edibles, for instance, is precise and predictable. Notably I cannot really function productively on THC (e.g., can't practice the piano), so I limit my THC use to the occasional fun listening session (*and sometimes to help with arthritis pain*).


I fell off a quonset hut a long time ago and I have an annoying tick in my back. It helps with that. Something about relaxing that area - and relaxing the mind/stress. 
You can play the piano more mindlessly. It's a trip, but you'll probably sound very lost and disjointed to someone listening. It seems, we'll tend to hear and then not hear in short episodes, depending upon what's going on in your thinking. 
There's a newness to the experience so you don't dwell on any one aspect, like how well you really sound. lol


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

For your consumption. This one is a two hour cruise:




Good fun!!!


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Chibi Ubu said:


> That's why I would never try it. It is an amphetamine derivative, I believe!😜


Not sure it is, but a lot of the cheap/scam stuff is probably cut with cheaper stimulants like dextroamphetamine or something along those lines. 

I'd say classical would be fun with MDMA but the reality is that anything is, it's one of the most predictable drugs out there in that way. Probably best with something with a lot of sumptuous texture, so maybe put on that Wagner instrumental "Bleeding Chunks" disc, hah (I didn't use classical, I used The Avalanches - Since I Left You which was great for that)


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> Not sure it is, but a lot of the cheap/scam stuff is probably cut with cheaper stimulants like dextroamphetamine or something along those lines.
> 
> I'd say classical would be fun with MDMA but the reality is that anything is, it's one of the most predictable drugs out there in that way. Probably best with something with a lot of sumptuous texture, so maybe put on that Wagner instrumental "Bleeding Chunks" disc, hah (I didn't use classical, I used The Avalanches - Since I Left You which was great for that)


Yes thanks, the music is nice (for cruising) and not too predictable. The plot of the video is clever and it's a clever takeoff on the Flashdance iconic scene. All well done.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

MDMA, aka *3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine* (*MDMA*), commonly known as *ecstasy* (*E*) or *molly


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA


*
Risky business in my book


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

*Cornelius - In a Dream




*


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Israel just released a psilocybin nasal spray for micro dosing, for the treatment for PTSD, depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and addiction.

There are quite a few studies that show micro dosing psilocybin is up to 4 times more effective for depression than antidepressants. 

I wonder how much further ahead studies on this would have been, if it wasn't for the knee-jerk reaction in the 60's and 70's?

As if mushrooms, mescaline, LSD, should have really been on the same list as heroin and meth


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> Israel just released a psilocybin nasal spray for micro dosing, for the treatment for PTSD, depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and addiction.
> 
> There are quite a few studies that show micro dosing psilocybin is up to 4 times more effective for depression than antidepressants.
> 
> ...


Cannabis was on that same list as well. People have always been fearful of anything that messes with your mind as people fear the chaos within themselves. Of course, that fear has nothing to do with the danger of any given drug. We now know pretty definitively that cannabis is less harmful than "legal" drugs like alcohol and nicotine-via-cigarettes, and I know of almost no cases of bad things happening on psychedelics similar to, say, driving drunk. 

The medicinal potential of these drugs is something else to consider too. I can't tell you how many people I now know (including myself) who are getting relief from a whole host of issues thanks to cannabis; while I've been very interested in recent studies on the the medicinal effects of psychedelics like psilocybin and DMT, such as what you mention above. Another that comes to mind is the study on how much more effective psilocybin was at treating addictions to smoking.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

*An ode for my oldest son:




Tears For Fears - The Tipping Point (2021)*


----------



## BrandonLG (Dec 11, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> As a working musician your gigs are in bars, with liquor readily available, often for free. Plus during breaks it is not uncommon (understatement) for patrons to offer you other things ... After a while we became used to performing with some kind of buzz and made a joke, "in order to play stoned, you have to practice stoned."


I was in a band. Similar experience. My bass player was almost always high, and he played way better that way.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Cannabis was on that same list as well. People have always been fearful of anything that messes with your mind as people fear the chaos within themselves. Of course, that fear has nothing to do with the danger of any given drug. We now know pretty definitively that cannabis is less harmful than "legal" drugs like alcohol and nicotine-via-cigarettes, and I know of almost no cases of bad things happening on psychedelics similar to, say, driving drunk.


The Schedule 1 classification of cannabis was purely political, a power move by a racist scumbag named Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics in the US. Look him up.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> The Schedule 1 classification of cannabis was purely political, a power move by a racist sumbag named Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics in the US. Look him up.


Yep, I know about the history of it. Pretty sad bit of history, but like most I doubt we'll learn anything from it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> The Schedule 1 classification of cannabis was purely political, a power move by a racist sumbag named Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics in the US. Look him up.


Also technically meth and cocaine are Schedule 2 as they still have medical uses that the federal guys accept. Not that it makes much of a difference in sentencing but it makes it much harder to do things like run medical trials with it.


----------

