Premier Rock Forum

flyinghouses wrote:What meth addicts have ever made good music?

These guys?



Mark reminded me last weekend that we'd been up for two days when we cut this record and that we had to make a run into town to get more speed in the midst of the sessions.

You see, that's how we were able to play so fast.

primate fly heavyweight wrote:for layne staley, or kurt cobain?

oh, what about scott weiland?

or the chili peppers?

is heroin to blame for iggy's 5 good albums or his 15 bad ones?

both drugs crap. and neither ever did anything for anything.

My comment about musicians using meth was meant to be a joke. More well known musicians use heroin than meth, though I didn't mean heroin is superior based on that fact. Meth demolishes your brain and is associated with far more violence than heroin. You have a better chance with heroin

SecondEdition wrote:One hit of strong enough meth can make you addicted for life. I don't know for sure - so please correct me if I am wrong - but I do not think heroin, unless it is really pure, can do that: I believe that it takes slightly more to get addicted to heroin that strongly.

There isn't a substance in existance that can get you addicted from a single experience of it, that's just propaganda from the 'war' on drugs.


I think it's about time the drugs started fighting back.

You can get hooked on crack with one try, but it's not a physical addiction like heroin.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true.

They make it sound feasible by talking of 'powerful experiences' that only last 10 mins, meaning you want more straight away, but it doesn't work like that.

i heard that as long as you do meth upside down or in a swimming pool you cant get addicted.

flyinghouses wrote:What meth addicts have ever made good music?

Lou Reed is the only one that comes to mind. Remember the song White Light, White Heat?

Through most of the 70's, it was his drug of choice.

Some of the pictures of him from this time are very scary.

He made Metal Machine Music during this time, and the cover art has, I believe, a model of either the Desoxyn or Methamphetamine molecule.

I still think its a horrible drug. I think Lou Reed would agree with that now also, since he's been clean for years.

It was a big thing on the Andy Warhol Factory scene as well I believe.

curry pervert wrote:They make it sound feasible by talking of 'powerful experiences' that only last 10 mins, meaning you want more straight away, but it doesn't work like that.

A cocaine or crack user (I'm not sure about meth), even a novice one, will always start craving for a new fix right after the stuff wears off. The reason for this is that the neurotransmitters get so overloaded during the high that they basically stop working directly afterwards, and take some time to start working again (like, a good night of sleep). Technically, the "come down" can be considered the effect of "kicking" an addiction, albeit a very mild one.

Long term addiction after first use is basically a myth.

i've never used heroin but i did meth once, crazy stuff, but i didn't want to do it again.

i was always more scared of heroin for some reason even though i've read that it's actually quite difficult to become addicted to heroin, ie, you have to do it a lot to become physically addicted. people supposedly become hooked psychologically long before physical addiction sets in. i'm not saying this is true but it's what i read recently.

on the coast of california the harbors are where a lot of the meth is. people make it on boats in international waters and bring it back to the harbors.

i now have to order lye on the internet for my soapmaking because you can no longer buy lye over the counter in the county.

alex maiolo wrote:I think the idea that smack has been usurped as the scourge of society is probably correct.

Heroin has the distinct disadvantage of being grown and refined thousands of miles away, while meth can be cooked up any old place. Pervasively inequitable society + geography of segregation, boredom and fear + easy-to-manufacture brain rot = oh shit.

The question could be interpreted as "pick an addict you'd have to deal with in some way", or as "pick a scourge". I would very reluctantly pick heroin for both, having lost people to it and visited Vancouver; both experiences I am not keen to repeat.

In addition to the harm reduction strategies artfully summarized by galanter, it bears keeping in mind that the supply of heroin is in great part a consequence of a globalized trade in ever-cheaper agricultural commodities, as well as geopolitical fucking-about in central and southeast Asia. Were that to change, the economy and epidemiology of heroin would be transformed as a consequence.