thedotmaster wrote:At the same time, some of the greatest music ever written was done without drugs.
Lots of art has been done without using paintbrushes.
thedotmaster wrote:And at the same time, thousands of people suffer from the consequences of drug abuse.
Thing is though.. there is no difference to being a smackhead and being a star - except the fame and the talent, of course.
I think we're slightly unclear here. I'm saying that non-addictive psychedelic drugs like LSD, marijuana, and magic mushrooms can inspire creative masterpieces that would not otherwise have existed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person taking them is better off themself.
I do understand your point though - drug addiction affects a lot of people whether they're famous or not; however, addiction is different to inspiration.
thedotmaster wrote:I bet you that those people all were very talented before they got into drugs and the drugs didn't help do anything.
Of course they were. I'm not actually suggesting that they got
their talent from taking drugs, and I'm also not trying to suggest that none of them were adversely affected by heavy drug use.
What I am
saying is that if it weren't for the use of some perception-enhancing/altering drugs, we would be missing some of the finest examples of creative genius. Entire genres of music are based solely around the use of one or multiple drugs. Some kinds of reggae, acid jazz, and psychedelic trance, are all intended to be created and experienced in a different state of mind to stone cold sobriety.