Thread: anybody else like to toke up on that sweet mary jane...

Originally Posted by Aramis

I think that baked Brahms would love Wagner.

And it would be no great surprise if Brahms needed drugs to appreciate his music

@ this thread

• Baked to Buxtehude
• Toked up to Tallis
• Stoned to Sibelius
• Well oiled to Offenbach
• Joy-riding to Janacek
• Spaced out to Scriabin
• Munted to Mendelson
• Toasted to Tchaikovsky
• Off your face to Frescobaldi
• Mainlining to Mahler
• Reefing to Rimsky-Korsakov
• F*cked to Forqueray

NB Wasn't it Berlioz (bombed out to Berlioz) who composed while on opium? I don't encourage drug use, and prefer a nice cup of tea myself, but there's a long connection between art and psychotropics. It's one reason the authorities view both activities with such suspicion. They want people in the factories, not tooting to Telemann.

Originally Posted by purple99

...there's a long connection between art and psychotropics. It's one reason the authorities view both activities with such suspicion. They want people in the factories, not tooting to Telemann.

That premise, of course, depends on that nature of the art involved. The authorities of their respective times and places attached little suspicion to the films of Leni Riefenstahl. Another example... 'Socialist Realism,' anyone??

A college professor who might well qualify as the best one under whom I studied asked the provocative question- if you really want to suppress expression, is banning the expression your best option-- or would it be more effective to instead try to drown it out in a Babel-like sea of pablum?!

I'm not a 'computer-gamer,' but those of you who are might remember the big hit 'Sid Meier's Civilization.' In it, 'the authorities' need to have a certain number of "Elvis-icons' on the board, to keep the populace happy enough, in its soma-like fashion, to continue accepting direction and control.

'Art' is a blade that's capable of cutting on many different planes.

Originally Posted by Chi_townPhilly

I'm not a 'computer-gamer,' but those of you who are might remember the big hit 'Sid Meier's Civilization.' In it, 'the authorities' need to have a certain number of "Elvis-icons' on the board, to keep the populace happy enough, in its soma-like fashion, to continue accepting direction and control.

Ah! So much nostalgia! I vividly remember playing the first version before I was a teenager on a laptop my Dad had from work and we were surprised it made any sound because we thought we'd need to buy a sound-card I worked my way through Civ II and Civ III, my favourite part always being the attempt to build a completed palace And, of course, I always won a cultural victory!

I think people who like to generalise about the kind of people who use marijuana and their reasons for it should watch this great speech about Carl Sagan's use of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0gH-cHiQg

(see 23:30 - 44:30)

Shakespeare also used:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...akespeare.html

I very much enjoy doing exactly what you described...

Originally Posted by Polednice

Well, let's just say that I hope I never come across you if I end up in rehab!

Other than on this forum, I find that scenario highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by BeethovenListener

Shakespeare also used:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...akespeare.html

No, it said that they found pipes around his house with traces of cannabis. It would be next to impossible to prove they were his pipes, and that he is the one who smoked them.

Besides, what would that have to do with anything?

Throwing out a few token well known people who were considered geniuses, who did use (Sagan), or some speculate used (Shakespeare) marijuana is neither an argument for or against use of marijuana. And it also does not give anything in the way of proof that marijuana would improve the creative capacity, or the enjoyment of art.

Originally Posted by DrMike

No, it said that they found pipes around his house with traces of cannabis. It would be next to impossible to prove they were his pipes, and that he is the one who smoked them.

Besides, what would that have to do with anything?

Throwing out a few token well known people who were considered geniuses, who did use (Sagan), or some speculate used (Shakespeare) marijuana is neither an argument for or against use of marijuana. And it also does not give anything in the way of proof that marijuana would improve the creative capacity, or the enjoyment of art.

I agree, and that wasn't the intention on my part. Personally, I prefer to follow the stance voiced by James (the Amazing!) Randi, who never drinks or uses narcotics etc. because he would prefer to forever have a sober grasp of reality, rather than distort it with mind-altering substances. I, too, would rather live in the real world, if only because I don't wish to be tempted by substances to which I might later become addicted if I (perhaps falsely) start to believe that they better my creative abilities (which I imagine is either coincidental or placebo).

I cited Sagan purely in response to those who think that marijuana users are all in one social class.

Originally Posted by Polednice

I agree, and that wasn't the intention on my part. Personally, I prefer to follow the stance voiced by James (the Amazing!) Randi, who never drinks or uses narcotics etc. because he would prefer to forever have a sober grasp of reality, rather than distort it with mind-altering substances. I, too, would rather live in the real world, if only because I don't wish to be tempted by substances to which I might later become addicted if I (perhaps falsely) start to believe that they better my creative abilities (which I imagine is either coincidental or placebo).

I cited Sagan purely in response to those who think that marijuana users are all in one social class.

I certainly would agree that marijuana users are not exclusive to any one social class. However, I believe that you would more than likely find a higher percentage tend to be in the more economically depressed classes - not necessarily as high a percentage as some of the "harder" narcotics, but certainly over-represented. There has been a great push to rehabilitate the image of marijuana, which has had some significant success. Whether it ever gains the acceptance of socially acceptable drugs, including nicotine and alcohol, remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by DrMike

I certainly would agree that marijuana users are not exclusive to any one social class. However, I believe that you would more than likely find a higher percentage tend to be in the more economically depressed classes - not necessarily as high a percentage as some of the "harder" narcotics, but certainly over-represented. There has been a great push to rehabilitate the image of marijuana, which has had some significant success. Whether it ever gains the acceptance of socially acceptable drugs, including nicotine and alcohol, remains to be seen.

Yes, I think we can certainly say where the majority of marijuana users fall. If it ever does become as 'respected' as nicotine and alcohol, I imagine it will take a lot of time, but I think it's about bloody time it was legalised (along with a load of other ****!)!

Lol @ the tags on this thread!

Originally Posted by Polednice

I cited Sagan purely in response to those who think that marijuana users are all in one social class.

Just to note - that was never the idea that I was pushing (I even stated that in a previous post)....and neither was the notion that you shouldn't smoke because of what others will think of you. What I was thinking when I said the OP should show concern over what his criminal record says about him, was if he someday decides to pursue a career that requires a background check, or a state license, or something where drug charges might be an unnecessary barricade. It happens...

Originally Posted by bplary

I very much enjoy doing exactly what you described...

assuming that this was directed toward me...
im glad someone else agrees.