From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #246 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, July 2 1998 Volume 07 : Number 246 Today's Subjects: ----------------- tell me about John's drugs. [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] recommendations... [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: tell me about your... 5% hitchcock content [amadain ] Re: tell me about your... 5% hitchcock content [Eb ] Re: tell me about your... [tanter ] Rykodisc purchased? [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Wiggy [Chris ] Remington Steele lessons 101 [Carole Reichstein ] Re: fegmaniax-digest [Eb ] Re: University Challenge [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan] Mr. Sean Lennon [Terrence M Marks ] Re: fegmaniax-digest [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] "But I know my way home, I can get there alone. The day I need you they can feed me to the lions." [Patrick W] Re: from randi - I snuck onto a hospital computer!! [amadain ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 21:28:37 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: tell me about John's drugs. On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:49:58 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >>There's no condemnation--maybe that's what disturbs me about it. The drugs >>are discussed in a very matter-of-fact way and in the direct quotes from >>Paul, he does seem to be saying that the drugs were a big help. (all of >>Sgt. Pepper is about drugs, for example) > >I'm afraid I don't buy this either. For one thing, I mean, listen to it! :) >It's about a -lot- of things, LSD being just one. For another, I'm not sure >I see matter of fact mention of substance using as being necessarily >disturbing. Now if people are being callous or blind concerning -addiction- >that's something altogether else. If we are getting onto the subject of substance abuse and creativity, as It seems we might be- a few comments. A) William Burroughs and Lou Reed were genius writers BEFORE they took their respective trips to Interzone. I have seen a band in Baltimore whose claim to 'fame' (among the incredibly small, elitist b-more art-punk-music scene) is that the members are on heroin. Lemme tell ya, they could put Stonehenge to sleep, they are so uninteresting. B) Syd Barrett. Need I say more? :-) ok, then Roky Erikson. anyone for Sky Saxon? But merely mentioning pot-smoking is not >really so much a big deal to me. I think we all would agree...I prefer an occasional couple of beers myself, but that's just me. -luther ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:33:10 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: recommendations... So thanks to hundreds of fegs with great taste, I finally listened to John Wesley Harding's _New Deal_. On second listen, I think it's nothing short of brilliant. What else by him do you recommend? Say, did I put you all to sleep this morning, or did my Notes system lose another kidney? Thanks, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:09:46 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: tell me about your... 5% hitchcock content >substances. Many I know have probably become more >well-rounded from their firsthand experience with >them. I know that's not terribly PC of me to say, and >I don't exactly practice what I preach on this Well, actually I would agree with that statement. I believe personally that the substances themselves are neutral, it's the people that use or abuse them that determine their effect. >saved, purchase, invest..., whereas many people who >dabble in these things are extremely healthy. I >think I'm agreeing with Susan's point that the >problem and the symptom are not the same thing. It can't be overstressed that many, probably the majority of people who consume substances, work, eat, drink, gamble, worship &c., do not do so destructively, even though all of these things can become destructive addictions. That's why I disagree cordially with Marcy and still believe that the mere mention of any of them is not a wrong thing. >Incidentally, I also disagree with the elements of >12-step programs that would tell me that addictions >are bigger than myself, Well actually, it does -feel- bigger than yourself, at least, it does to me :). I think 12 step is most useful for people who haven't yet admitted how large the problem actually is (the "I can handle it, leave me alone. Just because I missed work 5 days in a row because of killer hangovers doesn't mean I have a problem" crowd), or people who blame themselves to a larger degree than they should. Many people blame themselves -entirely- which really isn't right. I'm not trying to discount personal responsibility, just to mention something that may not be completely obvious here. A lot of substance abusers and addicts are also suffering from some form of depression and at the very least of it, horribly low self-esteem, and are prone to thinking that this is all their fault because they are weak assholes with no discipline, and that they brought it all on themselves. And you do feel powerless at first, and it is good to hear that someone recognizes these feelings and sees that it's a little more complex than just "oh, well, why can't you just quit then, have you no willpower?". A frightening amount of people DON'T know the problem is a little bigger than being self-indulgent. Every time I read some advice column where someone thinks they're being "refreshing" by saying "Just be responsible and put the bottle down" I just cringe, knowing how much that could hurt someone who was like I was a year ago, just starting the struggle. Most (not all, but a good many, certainly me) people who are just becoming aware they have a problem aren't exactly sitting there gleefully revelling in their dissipation, they fucking HATE it and to a certain degree themselves for having it. In other words, fuck you very much Dr. Laura Schlessinger :). >that I have no power over them, that if I substitute "codependent" (sorry, I >don't like that word, but it is useful shorthand) behavior for a substance >for similar >behavior for a deity I don't have to deal with my root >problems and This is where my problem comes in and why I didn't choose to participate in such a program. Although much of what I did and do is actually similar to things they recommend (e.g., when you feel yourself backsliding into a misery drunk, try not to let it happen, CALL someone, do something). Much of what they say is pretty sensible, but this idea of placing faith in a deity is just not at all right. You really need to find that place in yourself that it's coming from and go there and muck through it. I just don't think there's any way that a solution can stick unless you try to deal with the root cause. THIS aspect of the "bigger than you" statement is a -real- problem for me, the idea that you must turn to a "higher power than yourself" to ultimately win the struggle. The problem, though not entirely one I chose to have per se and probably partly a result of genetics, really does begin and end with me and is my responsibility to lick. Swapping one dependence for another ain't gonna cut it. No, I never thought methadone was a good idea either, can you tell? :) It is my suspicion that this "just substitute God for the substance in question" is partly behind their idea that even one drink will start you back on the road again. It WILL for sure if all you did was find a different crutch- because that crutch is probably always going to be more appealing to you than the one they substituted, after all, if it weren't you wouldn't have chosen that one first. My personal experience has been that I am quite capable of going to a show, having 2 or 3 beers, and not wanting another. And it's not just not drinking, it's that lack of desire to be smashed that is really really SWEET, I have to say :). Furthermore, I find now that I am able to -choose- whether or not I want to be drunk, which I was NOT able to before, and that I make that choice pretty infrequently (twice in the last 10 weeks or so). It's hard to explain to those who haven't been there, but the experience is qualitatively different, because it's not done out of a driven compulsion and it doesn't come from a place of utter misery. Context is really everything in this case, and I find that seriously enjoying myself at someone's birthday party is very different from the utterly horrifying go til you pass out "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead"-ish binges I used to go on (God how I can relate to that song, been there done that got a thousand tshirts). I'm sure AA types will all scoff at me and tell me I'm in denial, but that's OK by me, they don't know what I'm talking about at all anyway because they didn't go the same route that I did. Utter abstinence may be the only thing that will work for some, and I salute their resolve if that's where they -must- go, but the majority of people probably don't -have- to do that. >I fear that societally, we make too many excuses for >people's choices and don't spend enough time looking >at root causes. I fear that I agree. Can you tell? :) It's totally antithetical to my own nature, which is obsessively wanting to know "Why?" :). Yes, I was that annoying child who was always going "WHY? Why is there air? MOM, tell me WHY!!!" (my parents finally bought me a set of books called "Tell Me Why", "Still More Tell Me Why", etc.- I don't remember how many there were but I know they saved my parents hours of irritation- anyone else remember these fondly? :)). I think it was this that saved my ass in the end tho, because if I hadn't been obsessed with finding the why I'd probably still be passing out in bathrooms and blacking out in public. Love on ya, Susan >"I'm not a moderate person. I believe in overdoing >something entirely to the point of dying from it >or leaving it alone altogether and dying for lack >of it." >-approximate, may be verrrry close, RH quote from >'90 GAMH show I knew there was a reason I felt a kinship with the man! :) If this isn't exact, does someone have the exact one? I want to use it as a sig. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:20:14 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: tell me about John's drugs. > If we are getting onto the subject of substance abuse and >creativity, as It seems we might be- a few comments. > A) William Burroughs and Lou Reed were genius writers BEFORE >they took their respective trips to Interzone. Ah yeah. This and the mention of the band who make a big foo fuss about being on heroin called something to mind..... A jazzhead pal of mind who worshipped (amazing wonderful) genius pianist Bill Evans told me that there were people who actually thought "Bill Evans is a genius-Bill Evans is a heroin addict-If I am a heroin addict, I can play like Bill Evans", and that this upset the man so greatly he used to cry about it constantly. He would try to take such people aside when he met them and explain that they didn't want to do this, and most of them would just act like he was trying to horde the elixir of genius to himself or some such silly thing. I am told that people also thought similar things about Coltrane and Charlie Parker. And I'm SURE that there have been countless writers who tried to emulate Burroughs in this way. Ah, the dangers of looking for a simple root cause. Again, I guess what I'm saying is- it's NOT THE DRUGS, nor is it the shoes :). Love on ya, Susan n.p. Gary Numan, "The Pleasure Principle". A man ahead of his time. In the 21st century when we all have housework robots, I want mine to have Gary Numan's voice. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:02:52 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: tell me about your... 5% hitchcock content >THIS aspect of the "bigger than you" statement is >a -real- problem for me, the idea that you must turn to a "higher power >than yourself" to ultimately win the struggle. > >It is my suspicion that this "just substitute God for the substance in >question" is partly behind their idea that even one drink will start you >back on the road again. I didn't find out until college that God Almighty was part of the 12-step program. I found that discovery very, very disturbing. Thank...uh...God that I have little interest in alcohol OR drugs. In the krazy kaleidoscope of modern music, The Happenings are unique. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 20:00:24 -0400 From: tanter Subject: Re: tell me about your... At 05:09 PM 7/1/1998 -0600, amadain wrote: >I believe personally that the substances themselves are neutral, it's the >people that use or abuse them that determine their effect. That's probably true to a point, but all the people I've known who, for example, have smoked pot on a continual (ie, daily, more than once) basis don't have a lot of show for their lives. I knew a woman who was doing really well in school, she started smoking pot every day, grew it in her dorm room because she needed it so often and wound up flunking out of school because she was either high or asleep all the time. The substance is only neutral until its lit--sure it's the person who "determines its effect" because the person uses it. If the person didn't use it, the effect wouldn't occur. We have a family member at the moment who's using almost daily and he and his friends don't have the energy to do much more than sit around, roll joints and eat. I know that there are people who function normally when they smoke pot, but not many. > That's why I disagree cordially with Marcy and still believe >that the mere mention of any of them is not a wrong thing. You misunderstood me. The mere mention of them isn't what I was talking about. It's the casual mentioning, the "this is totally normal and there's nothing wrong with it" attitude that bothers me. The way the quotations are put in the book, Paul sounds like a major druggie whose songs evolved through his use of drugs, not because he has any real talent. I know he uses and I know he did in the 60s, but I highly doubt that because he smoked pot his talent developed--he had talent before the pot and he's written lots of things while not smoking. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 21:24:14 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Rykodisc purchased? According to Pulse magazine, "(Island Records founder Chris Blackwell)... has signed a letter of intent to buy Ryko for $35 million. Early this year, (Blackwell) launched a new company, Island Life..." A new home for the Soft Boys? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 21:22:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Subject: Wiggy >So I've been wondering since i heard this the first time-- is this Wiggy >the same Wiggy who taught Billy Bragg to play guitar? (are there any >other Wiggies we knoe of?) Well, in the 70's a local radio station had a mascot named Wiggy the Wonder Dog. Basically a guy in a big dog suit who rode around in a van waving at people. But it was still kind of cool. :) Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Carole Reichstein Subject: Remington Steele lessons 101 The sleuthful, TV watching Randi wrote: > Like how to be the last one out of the "Patient Info Room" at the > hospital and putting gum wrapped in sterile guaze into the lock - > pretending to check the door and then scurrying off to your room. > > So - I got up early - it's Canada Day here - July 1st - so the hospital > is relatively empty - and Tim gave me the number to his server - and here > I am! > > This is fun 8-} AhA! So *this* is how Randi whiles away the time in hospital. Randi, you need to sneak online more often! :) Such dedication to a mailing list, I've never seen. The hospital staff must talk about you after hours.. > > Anyway - for those of you familiar with "The Sound of Music" - it feels > like a 'lonely goatherd' is running through my insides - so I've been > singing/humming the song constantly - to the annoyance of many I'm sure :} Have you heard "Cheese Alarm" yet? That should keep you singing for a week, with a maddening craving for brie (that is, if you can digest the stuff). Well, do take care, get well soon, and keep hacking away at the hospital terminals! I, for one, am quite impressed. :) Carole ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:42:27 EDT From: Tobyhello@aol.com Subject: Tim Keegan + The Homer Lounge Just heard the new single on the radio and, at first listen at any rate, it sounded like his best yet... anyone know when it's out? Toby ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:31:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Jason Legacy Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #245 I remember reading that Lennon desbribed himself as a violent person, who learned to be a non-violent person. As he became steadily more enlightened over the years about others' feelings,etc., he grew somewhat ashamed of his violent past. Hence his hatred of the mysoginistic lyrics of "Run For your Life" (he disliked both "It's Only Love and "And your Bird Can Sing" for entirely different reasons, mainly that he thought they were lyrically and emotionally vapid).He admitted to being violent with Cynthia way before he ever began using pot (though he was apparently consuming lots of alcohol and amphetamines during his early years). He speaks about his controlling and violent behavior in "Getting Better" on the Pepper album when he sings "I used to be cruel to my woman I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved", if my memory serves. He also sarcastically responds to the song's chorus of "It's getting better all the time" by singing back "It can't get no worse". Those around Lennon have remarked that as he used more marijuana, his personality actually softened and became more passive. The downside to this was that he lost some of his aggression in areas of his life where he could have still used it, and at one point he had tripped so much on hallucinogens that he verged on a nervous breakdown (or a complete loss of identity, depending on the source).So to clear things up, Lennon himself described himself as a violent man, though he clearly regretted and wished to atone, in various ways, for his past misbehaviors. It took that Lennon topic to get me to add my two cents this time, but I also have something to say about our beloved Robyn. I LOVE his music. Although he can be obtuse and weird, whatever, he's also brilliantly personal. Whenever I see him live, whether with the Egyptians or solo, he never fails to move me profoundly. And I've seen him live more often that any other artist, except Pere Ubu. But anyway, I'm constantly amazed by how much better all of his stuff sounds live, especially when with the Egyptians. The Egyptians have STUNNED me with their musical prowess and the beauty of their performances. Yet I hear almost none of this on any of their albums. In fact, they almost sound clumsy and inept on some of their recordings. A lot of the time the production is quite bad or wrong for the music. The only production I've liked has actually been "Respect", "Queen Elvis" and "Element of Light". And even some of that has been spotty. I've heard songs from "Globe of Frogs" played with teh Egyptians that knocked my socks clean off, yet on album they sound thin and boring. Oh yeah, I love "Hen Out",too. I honestly believe that just about every album should have been released as a live performance like "Hen Out". But anyway, I wonder what others feel about this. My biggest question at this point would be why Robyn has been, in my opinion, so neglectful of the production and actual sound of his music on record. He clearly cares a lot about his songs, so why has his recording of them been so scattershot? Perhaps it has been out of his hands too often, which is a terrible shame. I honestly feel that it has been the sloppy production of so much of his material that has kept him from reaching a wider audience. And I don't mean the 4-track-sounding production of "Moss Elixer". I feel that the production of that album fits the intended tone of the songs quite nicely. Nothing wrong with low-fi. Or the crisp yet embellished sound of "Queen Elvis" or "Element". But the bombastic production of "Perspex" or the clunky, huge-snare drum sound of "Fegmania" makes Robyn's work sound junky and novelty-ish, which is the opposite of what Robyn is really about. Anyway, I'm curios if other fans of Robyn agree with me about this. And oh yeah, on my XTC mailing list for "Chalkhills and Children" someone asked what the connection is between Robyn and XTC, under the letter heading "Andy Hitchcock" (this caught my eye and I thought it was quite funny).Apparently Robyn is amused by XTC, and thinks that Elvis Costello tends to over-write his songs. Wow. Honestly, I think Robyn hit it right on the head about Elvis, at least since he became famous. Love on ya all, Jason. PS. I don't know who brought this up, but I've always heard it as "I'm under the trees" in "Tonight", also. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:11:35 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest Jason wrote: >And I've seen him live more often that any other artist, >except Pere Ubu. Woo. Another thumbs-up vote for Pere Ubu's live show.... > But anyway, I wonder what others feel about this. My biggest >question at this point would be why Robyn has been, in my opinion, so >neglectful of the production and >actual sound of his music on record. He clearly cares a lot about his >songs, so why has his recording of them been so scattershot? ....Anyway, >I'm curious if other fans of Robyn agree with me about this. Sure, it's definitely a problem for him. My impression is that he really doesn't think much in recording terms. He's a solo folk troubadour at heart, and thus doesn't have a strong orientation/direction when it comes to "decorating" these folk songs for the modern market. He thinks in terms of lyrics and chords -- not instruments, arrangements and mixing. It's certainly one of his conceptual blind spots. >Apparently Robyn...thinks that Elvis >Costello tends to over-write his songs. Wow. Honestly, I think Robyn hit >it right on the head about Elvis, at least since he became famous. Hush, or I'll sic LJ on you. >Love on ya all Arrrgh. And with that, the "Love on ya" club doubles in size. Not only do they wilt Flower Power from Haight-Ashbury to Washington Square, shoot down squadrons of teeny-boppers from Hannibal to the Hamptons, shake the ivy off the walls from Abilene Christian to Youngstown U., but they also knock the pale purple petunias right off Rosella Dinwiddie's summer crepe. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:03:45 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: University Challenge >> Is this the same game show that was once featured on the British comedy >> "The Young Ones"? The same episode that featured an excellent Motorhead >> appearance, I think! That is/was a funny show, I first saw it a year or two >> ago on Comedy Centeral, but alas, they dropped it pretty quickly... > >Certainly is. I was on it quite recently, in, oh, er, 1975 actually, and >it was exactly like the Young Ones: frantic efforts to remember the rivers >of Yorkshire in the train on the way up - getting slaughtered by a toffee >nosed Oxford college - all night drinking binge... heh! Dignan-Otago (1984) here... good to know I'm not the only ex-"Challenger" on the list, although it was a little different in NZ because the series was shot down here in Dunedin (so no travel) and there are no bastard Oxbridge teams (we only had to put up with the bastard Auckland team - no offence Danielle! The captain of their side, Brian McDonnell, is current Telebingo champion, FWIW). There was still a lot of drinking, though. We actually won the damn thing, although with only seven universities in NZ, that doesn't mean much (although I can claim to have been a national champion at something! I was also the unofficial coach for the next couple of years). The funniest thing about the Young Ones episode, which the yanks probably won't realise, is the wonderful take-off of quizmaster Bamber Gascoigne ("Bambi"). James (still kicking himself that he couldn't remember who wrote "Hiawatha") James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 23:48:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Mr. Sean Lennon I've heard snippets of Sean Lennon's latest album and I don't know if I should be buying it or making fun of it. Could one of you-all make up my mind for me? Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 23:59:38 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest >> But anyway, I wonder what others feel about this. My biggest >>question at this point would be why Robyn has been, in my opinion, so >>neglectful of the production and >>actual sound of his music on record. He clearly cares a lot about his >>songs, so why has his recording of them been so scattershot? ....Anyway, >>I'm curious if other fans of Robyn agree with me about this. > >Sure, it's definitely a problem for him. My impression is that he really >doesn't think much in recording terms. He's a solo folk troubadour at >heart, and thus doesn't have a strong orientation/direction when it comes >to "decorating" these folk songs for the modern market. He thinks in terms >of lyrics and chords -- not instruments, arrangements and mixing. It's >certainly one of his conceptual blind spots. While Robyn's records aren't revolutionary in their production, there are several that have a very distinctive sound to them. The first that comes to mind of course is "Respect", with it's layers of acoustic and electric guitars, the interesting use of synths and electronic drums, it's definitely one that has a "vision" to it's sound. Some people think it's actually over-produced, but I like it. Besides, you can always hear the solo-acoustic versions on tapes. Also, to my ears "Underwater Moonlight" is another one that deserves credit for it's sound. It has a wonderful sort of cavernous thing going on, and at the same time the guitar sound is nice and brittle. I think "Moss Elixir" is one of his best sounding records, but for the little touches like the beautiful violin opening to "Sinister But She Was Happy" and the weird horns on "DeChirico Street". And "Element of Light" is definitely a beatifully produced record, songs like "Winchester", "Raymond Chandler", etc. have a great clarity to them. Evidence of Robyn's interest in recording, besides on these albums, can be seen the most on "Invisible Hitchcock". The way he does the songs is all over the place, like the keyboards on "Messages of Dark" or the swirling psychedelic guitars on "Eaten By Her Own Dinner" to name just two of them. It's a testement to his songwriting that he can do most of his songs on solo guitar and they still sound great. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 21:40:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Welker Subject: "But I know my way home, I can get there alone. The day I need you they can feed me to the lions." >with a very deep fear of abandonment and a lot of unresolved anger towards women. I knew there was something about the man that I had in common with him. For me, it all started when I was child. I saw my mother naked and I've been jealous ever since.......... Sorry, I'm not feeling like myself today. Allowing me to do and say things that I(as myself) would normally not. !!!Heruka!!! p.s. Guy Chadwick is groovy!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:42:50 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: from randi - I snuck onto a hospital computer!! >Watching waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much "Remington Steele" - it plays here >in T.O. every day at 3:00 pm - and it's better than soap operas :} >You can actually learn something... Wow! I am impressed! God only knows what'll happen when they start showing McGyver :) :). >pardon me susan for stealing your sig., but love on you all :} and love on you too :). Hope to see you back around these parts regularly starting ASAP. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:39:03 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: tell me about your... >That's probably true to a point, but all the people I've known who, for >example, have smoked pot on a continual (ie, daily, more than once) basis >don't have a lot of show for their lives. The problem ain't the pot. The problem is what's driving them to abuse it. Neh? If it weren't there they'd find something like it. It's not as if addiction happens arbitrarily. It doesn't at all. A need to be constantly zonked doesn't come out of the blue just because you tried pot one day, it was there lurking all the while. >than sit around, roll joints and eat. I know that there are people who >function normally when they smoke pot, but not many. Well, I've known a great many people who smoked pot once in every great while who functioned just fine. Just like I know a great many people who only have a glass of wine with dinner and are never on any occasion tempted to keep on drinking it until they've run through three bottles and passed out. You either HAVE this capacity or you don't, but there's ample evidence to suggest that the substance itself isn't what produces the effect. I'm -not- trying to dismiss your concern for the people you mentioned. Don't read it that way, please, because I feel for you and them. They've got problems that definitely merit concern. But their marijuana abuse, although it sounds as if it's definitely exacerbating the situation and creating new and different problems, is not the -root- cause. This is all I've been trying to say all along. They probably don't know themselves what it is (or are in deep denial), or they'd be able to start telling you about it and/or start attempting to cope in less self-destructive ways. >about. It's the casual mentioning, the "this is totally normal and there's >nothing wrong with it" attitude that bothers me. One key difference I see is that maybe our social experiences have been a little different :). Seriously, hear me out, I'm not being accusatory. I think this accounts for the difference in perception. I'm used to seeing people use pot in a similar way that others have used alcohol throughout the ages, and I think of it as similar- a social drug in common casual use, and actually with less potential for addiction than alcohol (though I don't believe the hippie hype that it's completely non-addicting, I've seen way too much real-life evidence to the contrary). It's not quite like heroin or cocaine, or hallucinogens, which I think of as being a different class of drug. So yeah, in other words I think pot is totally normal. Also mention of casual hallucinogen use isn't particularly scary to me, as a lot of people who experiment with hallucinogens -don't- end up Syd Barrett. People who speak of casual cocaine use or casual heroin use, however, are IMO always self-deluded, as I can't think of a single instance where people were actually -able- to do these drugs more than once or twice and not become addicted. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #246 *******************************