# Have drug use made you creative in your music?



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

I am very curious about drugs, my eyes are open now, drugs is something easy to get, I thought it's hard.
I heard Berlioz composed while high on opium.
I've only tried weeds, but I did not become more creative.
I've only tried it for the improvement of my creativity (which I failed), not just for having fun and be a hipster.
Since weeds failed me, I'm planning to try another.
now, if you had taken drugs, did it made you more creative in your music? and what drug is that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've never done any drugs harder than alcohol (not even marijuana), but I've always intended to get some real absinthe when I'm in a country where it's legal. I haven't thought of trying to compose in that condition - and anyway, I no longer try to compose at all because I had no ability at all - but of seeing how my writing turns out. I find that I am more creative when I am extremely sleep-deprived: not that the writing is better, because it actually requires sober editing, but it _is_ more creative than usual. So I suspect there is something to the theory that some part of our mind acts as something like a filter, eliminating a lot of creative ideas before they reach our consciousness - and I suspect a composer would find that too.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

LSD can enhance creativity, but you're unlikely to have the discipline to structure things properly while on it. You might have good results if you compose shortly after a trip.


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

have you tried it Garlic?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think drugs have different effects in different people. I do think some drugs can open up areas of the brain that are linked to creativity in some people, but there are almost always major down sides to drug use, such as addiction, poor health, brain damage and death.

Some people desire to experiment, that is one thing, but I would suggest developing your creativity on your own, that way it is something real and dependable. If you eventually find success with this or that drug, before long chances are you will start increasing use. I also think once people get to a certain point with drugs (ie - have used for a long time) they tend to lose their 'creative effect', and end up just doing more harm than good.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

ethanjamesescano said:


> have you tried it Garlic?


Yes, as long as you're not in a bad place mentally I would highly recommend it, although it might change the way you think forever.


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

Garlic said:


> Yes, as long as you're not in a bad place mentally I would highly recommend it, although it might change the way you think forever.


I want to take (try) LSD!
is it early for a 16 year old? I'm just going to try it


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I want to take (try) LSD!
> is it early for a 16 year old? I'm just going to try it


Whoa dude. _At least_ wait a few more years….

No matter how you feel, your brain actually hasn't finished developing. It's much more vulnerable now than it will be later - and even then anything like LSD will be dangerous. For now, though, just give your brain a few more years of normal development. You'll be glad you did.

Get back to us in, say, 5 years.


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

science said:


> Whoa dude. _At least_ wait a few more years….
> 
> No matter how you feel, your brain actually hasn't finished developing. It's much more vulnerable now than it will be later - and even then anything like LSD will be dangerous. For now, though, just give your brain a few more years of normal development. You'll be glad you did.
> 
> Get back to us in, say, 5 years.


sure, you said it!

.................................................20 more characters................................................................................................


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I know I sound like someone's parent, but sixteen is too young for any mind-altering substance. The potential drawbacks way outweigh the possible benefits. Spend your teenage years enjoying the world the way it is, and save warping it out of shape until later.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I've only tried weeds, but I did not become more creative.
> I've only tried it for the improvement of my creativity (which I failed), not just for having fun and be a hipster.


Zonk.

Ask your mother what drug made her so creative that she could give birth to such a peculiar kind of kid as you. Hopefully, she will help you make up your mind about this subject.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I know how you feel, I used drugs from 16 to 18 years old (I am 29 now).

It brought me a lot of pain and interrupted my normal development and maturity. I would never touch it if I knew all the problems it can bring.

Still, I don't think anything that I write here will change your mind, I remember being 16 yo. And I am sure that many people may encourage you and you will only read and believe in what suits your own will at this moment.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think it's a myth. If you're zonked out of your brains, dribbling from every orifice, you're incapable of spooning yourself some soup, let alone creating timeless masterworks. Only an idiot would think drugs can help create great work. 

Sorry, but that's true...


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

"Drugs" are not one thing. Some drugs can certainly inspire creative works by shutting down inhibitory signals, allowing for easier associative and abstract thought. This can persist to some extent after the main effects of the drug have worn off.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Garlic said:


> LSD can enhance creativity, but you're unlikely to have the discipline to structure things properly while on it. You might have good results if you compose shortly after a trip.


I wouldn't count on being able to compose if you're tripping on lsd


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I'd advise against it. Not unless you want your first symphonic poem to sound like Babar getting raped.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I want to take (try) LSD!
> is it early for a 16 year old? I'm just going to try it


Whoa! Now Hear This!!!!

It is a fact that whether it is a few beers or a psychotropic drug (alcohol is a drug, people, no matter how you want to gloss it), all should be avoided while you are still physically growing: as already said, your brain (as well as the rest of you) is still developing / growing -- that is seriously the wrong time to mess with any drug, period.

Taking anything by way of drugs (ahem, includes alcohol) much earlier than age 21 can have some real affect on your brain and motor development. True, it usually takes a lot, but since everyone is different in this regard, I would _wait until you are older._

One acquaintance of mine drank heavily and took drugs through high school, and forever since has a chronic tremor in his hands which first appeared when he was seventeen or eighteen. He says some other larger-scale coordination he has is also not 'normal': all this, doctors told him, is the result of messing with his brain / nervous system too young, and if he had waited he would have instead just had some "experiences"and maybe a few bad mornings 

_Nothing will make you more creative than you already are._

*Do not take any drug -- including alcohol -- until your body is "adult."* Men do not stop growing to first adulthood until the age of 21, regardless of the age of consent, voting, or when your local laws allow you to drink.

Meanwhile, you might want to read Aldous Huxley's excellent short book / long essay, "The doors of perception."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I've never done any drugs harder than alcohol (not even marijuana), but I've always intended to get some real absinthe when I'm in a country where it's legal. I haven't thought of trying to compose in that condition - and anyway, I no longer try to compose at all because I had no ability at all - but of seeing how my writing turns out. I find that I am more creative when I am extremely sleep-deprived: not that the writing is better, because it actually requires sober editing, but it _is_ more creative than usual. So I suspect there is something to the theory that some part of our mind acts as something like a filter, eliminating a lot of creative ideas before they reach our consciousness - and I suspect a composer would find that too.


Alcohol _is_ "harder" than marijuana; it is just the one nearly universally 'sanctioned' drug, along with caffeine and nicotine. Of course, one can do too much of anything, including food


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Pot certainly made me a 'creative' listener, at least once. The 2nd time I got to listen to Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra I had taken a few tokes, late in the evening, while 'house-sitting' for a friend (yeah, it was his pot). The music ended up scaring the bejassus out of me. I went around and checked all the locks, and took a gun to bed with me.

There was a lifelong benefit though; I can still 'trip' on that music, drug-free.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Find your favorite Composers/Bands. See what drugs (if any) that they were using. Then copy that if you are willing to take high risks. But maybe waiting until 18 would make a huge difference.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

At least get the kitschy experience by taking opium. Actually, wait a few years, think it over again, tell someone close to you, make sure you are in a comfortable period and establish beyond certainty that nothing will go wrong - then take something. It'll probably hardly effect your creativity, but enjoy the experience.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Or better yet, don't take drugs at all. The risks are not worth it. There are better ways to tap into your creativity, such as listening to music or taking a walk.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

But what about taking a walk while listening to music while on drugs?


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Garlic said:


> But what about taking a walk while listening to music while on drugs?


In my experience, drugs and walking don't go well together :lol:


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Depends on the drug. Watching someone try to walk on ketamine is pretty hilarious. But trippy late night walks in the park with music are some of my best memories from my teenage years.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Garlic said:


> But what about taking a walk while listening to music while on drugs?


Great combo with alcohol. Go out on nature walks. Listen to some great music and buzzing.  Just make sure to bring enough alcohol and water.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I am very curious about drugs, my eyes are open now, drugs is something easy to get, I thought it's hard.
> I heard Berlioz composed while high on opium.
> I've only tried weeds, but I did not become more creative.
> I've only tried it for the improvement of my creativity (which I failed), not just for having fun and be a hipster.
> ...


Drugs won't make you creative in anything apart from screwing your brain up - just don't buy into this romantic myth. I don't think any of the great composers composed while on any sort of drug apart from a ciggie or a good glass of wine & Bach was certainly composing from a higher realm no drug would have bettered.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I would say drugs are mainly for recreational use which can enhance your life experiences. More interesting life experience might help in your creativity. I know I can feel Sibelius's nature walks in his music.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I discourage drug use, except prescriptions. I encourage counselling for what really ails. Enjoy and live life sober. There's no greater high than that. :tiphat:


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I heard Berlioz composed while high on opium


please care to elaborate who you heard that from?


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

16 ????????????

Don't

Jos


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Thinking to over, the only really good art I can think of that came out of being high were Coleridge's "Kubla Khan" and the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper Album. There may be a couple of others, but not that I can think of. Not good odds. Drugs often only make you _think _you're being creative when you're actually producing drivel.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

avoid the whole opium, cocaine, LSD stuff - a bit of alcohol is enough to be a bit 'under the influence'. No need to overdo it.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Artistic creation, as well as scientific, is composed of two steps: i) the creative part; ii) the rational/discernment part. 
According to modern neurology, creativity is defined as the capability for generating new ideas. A creative subject is often capable of generating a cascade of ideas when confronted with a problem to solve.
These ideas are generated by the brain in a process based more or less on free association. In this part, the baggage of knowledge of the subject is very important. If you have more knowledge, more data, you have more possibilities for interesting and new combinations. So, lesson number one for improving your creativity: learn a lot of new things, read, study, etc. The mere fact of having more data in your brain is already helpful for creativity. 
Rationality doesn't play a big role here. The ideas are generated by the brain in a more or less automatized way. It has been shown that when the subject is in a stimulating environment, creativity works better. Also, breaks, informality, open minded attitudes are helpful too.
I guess some kind of innate ability for creativity could exist in this part, but I'm not sure.
Drugs use at this stage can have some effects possibly, since it may stimulate the production of ideas not considered otherwise. But at the same time, it also can simply block the brain.
But, as I said, creativity is a process in which the brain makes associations between data you have in your memory already. So, not only is important what you do during the creative process, but also what you do in your normal time!.
I think the best way to statistically increase your creativity is to enlarge that data bulk you have in your brain.
Now, once the creative part did its job, it's time for the rational/discernment part. 
So far, you have been confronted with a problem. Your creativity produced a lot of ideas for dealing with the problem. But a lot of those ideas are bad ideas, and just some few may be good.
So, the next step is to analyze rationally the potential of these ideas. This part is hard, since a lot of experience is needed. Complete awareness is indispensable here.
Once the best idea is selected, you finally implement it.
So, artistic or scientific creation is hard because you need to have fluency in a lot of different aspects of thinking: you need to be well read; you need to be creative; you need to be good at rational thinking; you need to have practical experience.
You can start to see how that romantic idea of the eureka genius, the idealization of only creativity, etc., is a caricature of the creation process.
I think that, overall, complete awareness is indispensable, as well as self discipline. There are a lot of key places in the creative process in which you need rational awareness of what you are doing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Alcohol _is_ "harder" than marijuana; it is just the one nearly universally 'sanctioned' drug, along with caffeine and nicotine. Of course, one can do too much of anything, including food


Exactly. A lot of people seem to draw the line on "drugs" based on what is currently legal and not legal in North America. In reality these are not very accurate guidelines to follow in terms of what is safe and not safe "drug" use. I am not saying this to advocate the use of illegal drugs at all, I strive to be completely drug free personally, but lets include all drugs in this definition. Alcohol is clearly more harmful than weed is one example, but as you brought up food I personally believe a lot of the fast food commonly ingested in the modern western diet is just as dangerous for our bodies as certain drugs (and in fact often contains "drugs" such as MSG) especially when eaten in vast quantities. Many of the medications people take daily are very damaging to the body and mind, and are in fact hard drugs. Refined sugar is an incredibly addicting drug, and when used in excess can lead to diabetes and other health disorders.

The only individuals I consider as truly "drug free" would be people who don't do any illegal OR legal drugs including things like alcohol, caffeine, junk food, refined sugar, medications, and drink very pure sources (ie - no fluoride) of water. In other words the way I see it an incredibly small percentage of the Western population is actually "drug-free".


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Alcohol may be harder on the body but I would say weed is harder on the mind. It was for me at least. Thus why weed is illegal.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Thinking to over, the only really good art I can think of that came out of being high were Coleridge's "Kubla Khan" and the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper Album. There may be a couple of others, but not that I can think of. Not good odds. Drugs often only make you _think _you're being creative when you're actually producing drivel.


There's so much good psychedelic music, though most of it I suspect was probably composed sober and just listened to high (or at least just the adding trippy effects stage)


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Yeah the Beatles composed while sober. Yes they were doing drugs on their free time. Maybe those experiences gave them ideas for their music.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

This thread is so disturbing.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

How so? Too many people are convinced DRUGS can never do any good ever, and should not even be spoken about except in moralistic condemnatory terms. I'm pretty sick of this attitude.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Vaneyes said:


> I discourage drug use, except prescriptions. I encourage counselling for what really ails. Enjoy and live life sober. There's no greater high than that. :tiphat:


I wish you'd been around to give Sibelius this advice. I've just been re-reading parts of Ross's "The Rest is Noise" in a desultory way, and just came across this blood-curdling quote from Sibelius's diary (written when he was 61):



> Isolation and loneliness are driving me to despair...In order to survive, I have to have alcohol...Am abused, alone, and all my real friends are dead. My prestige here at present is rock-bottom. Impossible to work. If only there were a way out.


Reading biographies of this composer has also given sad insights into what his wife Aino had to endure in his company.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Garlic said:


> How so? Too many people are convinced DRUGS can never do any good ever, and should not even be spoken about except in moralistic condemnatory terms. I'm pretty sick of this attitude.


Most drugs aren't that horrible. But it's so easy to overdose on Heroin. That and Meth are probably the 2 most dangerous drugs. But definitely be careful with Heroin. They should have a statistical analysis based on recreational amount compared to the lethal amount for each drug. I bet heroin has the smallest gap.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hold off on the LSD, finish school, and learn some grammar.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Hold off on the LSD, finish school, and learn some grammar.


Grammar is, like, SO last century!


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Most drugs aren't that horrible. But it's so easy to overdose on Heroin. That and Meth are probably the 2 most dangerous drugs. But definitely be careful with Heroin. They should have a statistical analysis based on recreational amount compared to the lethal amount for each drug. I bet heroin has the smallest gap.


while heroin may be the most lethal in terms of personal risk, prescription narcotics actually kill more people than all the illegal drugs combined, at least in the United States. This is in part due to the acetaminophen (tylenol) in most narcotics causing liver toxicity, but not entirely. Recreational users frequently combine them with other prescription mood-altering medications/alcohol/illegal drugs. It's become a serious problem especially in the last ten-fifteen years.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Oh and as for me, I'll have a single alcoholic drink about three times per month. Occasionally this coincides with a piano playing session, though usually not. I cannot say that it's done anything to improve my playing  I've never been really interested in trying drugs.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> I think drugs have different effects in different people. I do think some drugs can open up areas of the brain that are linked to creativity in some people, but there are almost always major down sides to drug use, such as addiction, poor health, brain damage and death.
> 
> Some people desire to experiment, that is one thing, but I would suggest developing your creativity on your own, that way it is something real and dependable. If you eventually find success with this or that drug, before long chances are you will start increasing use. I also think once people get to a certain point with drugs (ie - have used for a long time) they tend to lose their 'creative effect', and end up just doing more harm than good.


This says all that I wanted to, and I vehemently support this point of view. Drugs are just an easy shortcut to creativity, with all the side-effects of shortcuts.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

Bruckner's 7th while stoned is a spiritual experience.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Celloissimo said:


> Bruckner's 7th while stoned is a spiritual experience.


 Is it no less "spiritual" when listening to it straight?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Grammar is, like, SO last century!


unlike grampa. dat dawg is tight. me n him just b chillaxin 2 vanilla b's 5th symph. 4 shizzle homie.
yolo. ever1 else just sound like sum ratched biatch or sumfin. word.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

samurai said:


> Is it no less "spiritual" when listening to it straight?


It is an extremely powerful and moving work and I get eargasms listening to it either stoned or straight, but the former highly enhances the experience for me personally.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Garlic said:


> How so? Too many people are convinced DRUGS can never do any good ever, and should not even be spoken about except in moralistic condemnatory terms. I'm pretty sick of this attitude.


the problem with drugs is that you never know for sure what reaction you're going to have. You're basically taking poison and hoping for badass hallucinations before it's flushed out of your system. Whilst ******* with your brain can give you some unusual/interesting perspective on things because it doesn't function in an everyday manner, let along lower your inhibitions, it's still screwing with something about which we know very little.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

One of the biggest challenges for me in life has been to discern who is r_eally_ a friend, and who is not. 
I certainly don't have the full answer, but here's a partial one:
People who invite you to do drugs are _not_ your friends.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

deggial said:


> the problem with drugs is that you never know for sure what reaction you're going to have. You're basically taking poison and hoping for badass hallucinations before it's flushed out of your system. Whilst ******* with your brain can give you some unusual/interesting perspective on things because it doesn't function in an everyday manner, let along lower your inhibitions, it's still screwing with something about which we know very little.


There is a considerable body of research about the effects of various drugs. There is empirical evidence linking some drugs to physical and mental illness, while others have been demonstrated to have little to no harmful effects. Some illegal drugs have lower toxicity than many over-the-counter medications, and are only poisons if you want to call aspirin and paracetamol poisons. The idea that the effects of drugs are completely unpredictable is not true - experienced users know what to expect and what the risks are, and the main dangers are from contamination, hence the need to source these things responsibly. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people constantly talk about "drugs" as if they're one thing (and often implicitly excluding alcohol, which is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> This says all that I wanted to, and I vehemently support this point of view. Drugs are just an easy shortcut to creativity, with all the side-effects of shortcuts.


Read Aleazk's entry here: creativity depends upon how much information / how many concepts you already have stored in the brain. Ergo, already creative and encylopedic "bright" Aldous Huxley taking LSD in his adult years is a universe away from a near Tabula Rasa (blank-slate) tween or teen taking a strong hallucinogen -- tripping without much data and nearly nothing to run on,_ which is just getting high without any other benefit._

Generally, there is a consequence -- price paid or extracted, if you will -- for about every action we take, and as well, sometimes for actions not taken.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Garlic said:


> There is a considerable body of research about the effects of various drugs. There is empirical evidence linking some drugs to physical and mental illness, while others have been demonstrated to have little to no harmful effects. Some illegal drugs have lower toxicity than many over-the-counter medications, and are only poisons if you want to call aspirin and paracetamol poisons. The idea that the effects of drugs are completely unpredictable is not true - experienced users know what to expect and what the risks are, and the main dangers are from contamination, hence the need to source these things responsibly. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people constantly talk about "drugs" as if they're one thing (and often implicitly excluding alcohol, which is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs).


drugs (like all pharmaceuticals and alcohol) are poisons in the sense that they alter the functions of the brain, especially when taken randomly (such as recreational drug use - there's no medical reason to take them, is there?). When I say unpredictable I mean that it's different from person to person, also it can be different for the same person based on whatever else is going on (other drugs, prescription or not, being used, whatever is going on in one's personal life). You can never be 100% sure how you will react, no matter how experienced you are. Another thing, in my experience, even experienced drug users **** up and more often than you'd think.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Garlic said:


> There is a considerable body of research about the effects of various drugs. There is empirical evidence linking some drugs to physical and mental illness, while others have been demonstrated to have little to no harmful effects. Some illegal drugs have lower toxicity than many over-the-counter medications, and are only poisons if you want to call aspirin and paracetamol poisons. The idea that the effects of drugs are completely unpredictable is not true - experienced users know what to expect and what the risks are, and the main dangers are from contamination, hence the need to source these things responsibly. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people constantly talk about "drugs" as if they're one thing (and often implicitly excluding alcohol, which is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs).


Many as in many forms of pot? Really pot is the only illegal drug I can think of safer than alcohol. I don't understand why alcohol seems to get such a bad rep. I've drank for 10 years. Never felt any worries of being in danger of od.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

CypressWillow said:


> One of the biggest challenges for me in life has been to discern who is r_eally_ a friend, and who is not.
> I certainly don't have the full answer, but here's a partial one:
> People who invite you to do drugs are _not_ your friends.


True if that's all they want to do. But if you have a long history with them as friends, maybe they just want to introduce you to a world of euphoria. People can still be friends while being a bad influence imo.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

neoshredder said:


> I don't understand why alcohol seems to get such a bad rep. I've drank for 10 years. Never felt any worries of being in danger of od.


It's all about _how_ you use it. A little alcohol from time to time is actually healthy. Doctors recommend it. Drinking alcohol and alcoholism are two different things.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Sorry for the bad joke about opium, but it _was_ just a joke. I'm alcohol free myself, which is relatively rare among peers of my age here, where the legal drinking age is 16; but the 'only sober person at the party' status is occasionally amusing, so I cope.

We are lucky that two famous drug-users were incredibly eloquent - I speak of course of De Quincey and Coleridge. De Quincey's Confessions and Suspiria de Profundis provide ample reason never to touch opium. Even when he concluded triumphantly that he beat opium at the end of the Confessions (as a matter of fact, he hadn't) he mentioned he was still "agitated, writhing, throbbing, palpitating, shattered". As for Coleridge, this should say enough:

"_I have in this one dirty business of Laudanum an hundred times deceived, tricked, nay, actually & consciously LIED. - And yet all these vices are so opposite to my nature, that but for the free-agency-annihilating Poison, I verily believe that I should have suffered myself to be cut in pieces rather than have committed any one of them._"

Without the skills to translate the visions you see to text or notes, there's no reason to attempt drugs to enhance one's creative capabilities; if you do posses them, the risks still outweigh the benefits. Coleridge wasn't a terrible poet who suddenly wrote masterpieces when he took a few drops of opium; no, he was a talented, young poet who had befriended some of the greatest minds of his age, only to ruin his reputation and his life with an opium addiction from which he never truly recovered. Even if a good poem or two came from it, I hardly think it was worth it.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Many as in many forms of pot? Really pot is the only illegal drug I can think of safer than alcohol. I don't understand why alcohol seems to get such a bad rep. I've drank for 10 years. Never felt any worries of being in danger of od.


Well the threshold for OD is much lower with alcohol than with most drugs. Good that you can keep it under control, many can't.
Illegal drugs safer than alcohol: cannabis, LSD, mushrooms, DMT, possibly MDMA (not entirely sure about that one).


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> avoid the whole opium, cocaine, LSD stuff


One of these things is not like the other....

Opiates and cocaine are physically harmful and addictive.

LSD (and other psychedelics: psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, etc) are not. If one is psychologically healthy, the likelihood of any kind long lasting harmful effects are extremely minimal.

There is a misconception that these types of molecules work by poisoning the system (like cocaine, opiates do). This is not true. These chemicals remain in the brain for just a few minutes, and are entirely metabolized out of the body within hours.

They fit the same serotonin-2A receptors in the brain that serotonin fits, they just 'unlock' them differently, eliciting a different kind of experience.

Here's serotonin -









Here's LSD -









Here's psilocybin -









Notice that they are based on the same HO/HN indole (lower portion of figures).

Now here's tryptophan, a harmless naturally occurring (turkey, shrimp, seaweed, egg whites) amino acid. Oh, look. There's that same indole again.









Hanging other molecules off of the serotonin indole, does not make the resulting chemical toxic, it just alters the way the brain reacts to it for a few hours.

The effects from the most potent psychedelic, DMT, when smoked only last 30 minutes. DMT is produced in the brain naturally.

All that being said, I agree with those that recommend not taking ANYTHING until your brain has finished developing (early 20's) and you have figured out who you are as a person.

Then, and only then, do your research and decide rationally if you want to precede.

What's sad, is that these molecules showed promise in treating depression, alcoholism, PTSD, and other conditions until politics got in the way. How many decades of possitive research has been lost because of archaic Puritanical morality?

LSD helps alcoholics give up alcohol - http://www.nature.com/news/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism-1.10200

Psilocybin mushrooms grow new brain cells and help PTSD -

http://intellihub.com/2013/07/07/ps...-new-studies-taking-place-despite-government/

Psychedelics in treating depression - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=psychedelics-may-help-treat-depression

Psychodelics in treating PTSD - http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/psychedelics-show-promise-for-ptsd-treatment/


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ how do you know this is a Puritanical attitude? some of us have seen our share of ODs and lives wrecked by drugs/alcohol. There's definitely too much politics when it comes to drugs and not all drugs are similar, of course, but usually it's not people doing research such as you have done who get into drugs. Mostly it's stupid kids who want to appear cool and will take whatever their mates will hand them.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

I rarely touch pot anymore, but once upon a time (while i was 15-16 years old) it made me a better listener. I understood and listened completely different. I don't see anything but positive effects. though, people are different. Should probably wait till you are 19-20 years old.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Garlic said:


> Well the threshold for OD is much lower with alcohol than with most drugs. Good that you can keep it under control, many can't.
> Illegal drugs safer than alcohol: cannabis, LSD, mushrooms, DMT, possibly MDMA (not entirely sure about that one).


I don't know about lsd and mushrooms but mdma and cannabis are definitely less heavy than alcohol. Mdma just makes you insane euphoric.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

ethanjamesescano said:


> ... did it made you more creative in your music? and what drug is that.


A definitive, resounding and unambiguous, yes! Cannabis. It opened doors to harmonic, rhythmic and melodic possibilities in my own composition that would have gone fully unrealised otherwise. The musical insights thereby gained remain if one takes the trouble to record/write them down at the time. There is absolutely no question in my mind on this - absolutely none.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

On a more serious not, has musical creativity helped anyone with their drug use? 

This is something I'd like to discuss, because I'm considering trying musical creativity.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2013)

I suppose like listening to classical music, taking drugs is a recreation that leaves some people cold. I smoked cannabis once, and eaten it once, when I was about 20, to no great effect, and have not felt the compulsion to take that, or any other similar substance since.

Yes, I drink, and have got drunk, and I love tea and coffee, so I'll not claim I've never consumed things that affect my behaviour, but I'm not attracted to taking something for the mere 'pleasure' of its mind-altering effect.

If that means I'll never be as creative as those who do, so be it. I'd rather keep what little control over my life I can exercise!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I've always found charts that appear to tout the supposed chemical similarity of one substance to another to be highly unconvincing. [I've seen a previous example claiming similarities between cocaine and table sugar.] Here's a very primitive example. O²- oxygen... indispensable to all us animals. Now, add one of the same atom to this construct- O³- ozone. Different beast entirely.

Are we looking to enhance creativity? How about that time-honored creativity-enhancer, a good old passionate romantic entanglement? If you're like me, you'll find yourself writing Elizabethan Sonnets when your previous versification-maximum was, say, the Dirty Limerick. The one problem with this, of course, is that it requires the involvement of someone else to get the full scope of the experience. However, you know, it isn't so bad to have a bunch of thoughts attach to someone other than yourself.

[Just don't be a stalker-creep about it, though. That weirds people out...]


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

Cannabis enhances listening on every level IMO. Don't smoke it either - vaporizers are the way to go! Save your lungs.


----------



## HoraeObscura (Dec 4, 2012)

"Have drug use made you creative in your music?" 

yes

but not constructive though... it's good for letting the muse speak and get me some ideas but I need my rational/sober mind to finish the idea though


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I am shocked and dismayed that so many people on this forum actually recommend using drugs as a creative stimulus. Even if they do enhance creativity, this is hardly an excuse for using illegal drugs and risking the consequences that stem from such use.

You should respect the laws of your government, which are implemented to keep you safe and healthy. I hate to be a goody two-shoes, but this needs to be said.


----------



## HoraeObscura (Dec 4, 2012)

I consider alcohol, tobacco, sugar and coffee also a drug...

Couple of rhetorical questions... If the laws are implemented to keep the citizens safe then why is alcohol and tobacco still legal? Why are certain plants still illegal after science proved that usage of these plants is not as unhealthy as the legal drugs? Why can certain ethnic groups use some of these plants, legally, for spiritual purposes while it's forbidden for others? 

But I respect your opinion Celloman, very much even... Because each is entitled on his on her opinion! 

I just disagree with it wholeheartedly


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2013)

You are only 16, for crying out loud. You should be filling your mind with information and skills, not psychotropic drugs. You will have a horrible and miserable life if already you are looking for crutches to "improve" yourself. Let me ask you this - how many jobs do you think there are out there for those who are only able to function while high? If you can't bring out creativity in a normal way, doing it with drugs is not going to improve your situation in life. I don't care if it is addictive or not - no company is going to hire you if you have to be high to get the job done. You become too much of a risk.

Your mind is your most valuable asset. At this age, you can absorb so much more than those of us who have reached older years. Let it develop. Take some pride in yourself without seeking artificial methods to "improve" yourself. Drugs are not the answer you seek. Do you want to know where inspiration comes from? Experience. I am a scientist. Do you want to know where my creativity comes from? Not some untapped secret closet in my brain that can only be opened with LSD. It comes from studying the literature, learning what other people are doing, and then sitting down and thinking about how those things might apply to the problems I am tackling. In other words, success comes to the prepared. No drug is going to create something out of nothing. If you have not done the work and trained your mind, there is not a drug on God's green earth that is going to pick up the slack.

Spend your time working on your preparation, not wasting it on supposed shortcuts that in the end leave you no better than where you started.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2013)

HoraeObscura said:


> I consider alcohol, tobacco, sugar and coffee also a drug...
> 
> Couple of rhetorical questions... If the laws are implemented to keep the citizens safe then why is alcohol and tobacco still legal? Why are certain plants still illegal after science proved that usage of these plants is not as unhealthy as the legal drugs? Why can certain ethnic groups use some of these plants, legally, for spiritual purposes while it's forbidden for others?
> 
> ...


If you have any experience studying government, you will realize that logic is not an essential ingredient for politicians. The answer is that so much of it is arbitrary. The notion that the laws are implemented to keep citizens safe is also absurd - it has more to do with government control, and even more to do with getting politicians re-elected. If they thought for one instant that it would get them re-elected, then they would illegalize alcohol and tobacco and coffee. But they know that it will cause huge political fallout, so they just tax it heavily so they can profit off of their legal drugs.

There are substances in alcohol, tobacco, and coffee which definitely can be classified as drugs. But this trendy fashion to claim that sugar is a drug is just plain ridiculous. Sugar is an essential ingredient to keep us alive. To stay alive, your body needs to maintain its blood sugar levels in a very specific range. Protein and fat are also important, as well as water and oxygen. But sugar is the basic fuel source. Too much sugar can be harmful, but then so can too much water, and too much oxygen.


----------



## HoraeObscura (Dec 4, 2012)

I stand corrected... Glucose, fructose and galactose aren't drugs (yes I looked those words up  ) but imho refined sugar is a drug... feel free to disagree of course

The first paragraph of your post pretty much nails it!


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2013)

HoraeObscura said:


> I stand corrected... Glucose, fructose and galactose aren't drugs (yes I looked those words up  ) but imho refined sugar is a drug... feel free to disagree of course
> 
> The first paragraph of your post pretty much nails it!


Still not quite sure what you think it is about refined sugar that makes it a drug. All refined means is that they purified the sugar out of whatever source material it originally came from - beets, cane, corn, etc. There is nothing different about the sugar itself. And sugar is just a generic term for a mixture of things like glucose, fructose, galactose, etc.. Those are all sugars. To say that glucose is not a drug but refined sugar is makes no sense. What is it that "refined sugar" has that makes it a drug whereas glucose, fructose, and galactose are not?


----------



## HoraeObscura (Dec 4, 2012)

My knowledge on these matters does not go far enough to give a valid answer to your questions... The statement I made is based on my believes and the things I've read not on facts I can prove nor disprove.

If the matter interests you I advise you to google "refined sugar drugs" go from there and form your own opinion.


----------

