George Haas new Clark only through brief visits - Donald was introduced to Clark through me, but had only a couple of visits as Carol was not too fond of him (regrettably, as the rest of us were/are) - My only claim here is that I new him longer and more intimately in the last years of his life than anyone now living - In addition, from childhoos on I knew many people who had known (including biblically) Clark all his life - the Sullys, Ethel Heiple, Roy Squires, Count Emilion Hebenstreit, and many of the middle-aged generation among my teachers who had taken an interest in him as well - even Harold Rubin, who was the journalism instructor at the Community College and was part of the circle I moved in as a young student.
Sorry Kyberean, I shall not trade insults with you, but if you think you have something relevant to contribute to the forum on the subject for which it exists, do so - you are clearly out of your depth on other matters. EOD

Quote:

Sorry Kyberean, I shall not trade insults with you, but if you think you have something relevant to contribute to the forum on the subject for which it exists, do so - you are clearly out of your depth on other matters.

You're the one who intiated the insults, and you have a lot of nerve to suggest that I have stooped to your level. Who was the first to use the vulgar term "BS"? Hint: not I.

As for your kind suggestion that I contribute relevant material to the forum, I invite you to take your own advice. You are the one who began editorializing about the follies of drug use and other utterly unrelated matters.

Regarding your risible assertion that I am the one who is out his depth in these other matters, may I remind you that you have not answered a single point that I or Steven Fama have raised. Instead, in reply you have offered sweeping, patronizing dismissals that incorporate nearly every logical fallacy in the book (hasty generalizations, generalizations from limited samples, appeals to emotion, etc.), all of which demonstrate that you are the one who is out of his depth. Continue to delude yourself otherwise, if you like, but that fact shall be apparent to anyone who bothers actually to read this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 22 Nov 04 | 11:47AM by Kyberean.

By the way, what does the frequency of George Haas's and Donald Sidney-Fryer's personal visits to CAS have to do with anything? Until refuted, their observations--which I presume have some factual basis--remain viable alternative interpretations to yours regarding CAS's drug and alcohol intake. That is my point.

Aren't we all being a bit like Laocoon, finding ourselves wrapped up in a never-ending discussion about what is an innately political topic -- drugs -- in an otherwise unsuitable forum? Let us consider calling a truce, turning our back on how and why CAS used or didn't use drugs, used or didn't drink, and look instead on what's essential about the man -- that he wrote, and that his writings give us pleasure even now, as we speak. It would do better for his memory that we reached a concord that allowed us to forego bickering, and instead celebrate the positive aspects of his legacy to us; after all, a man deserves to be remembered for his best, eh?

This means we should look to what maeks his work unique, perhaps, and what ties us together, and not divides us.

Quote:

Let us consider calling a truce

I suggested that, as well, only to be met with Farmer's vulgar remark, in reply. I'm perfectly willing to shut up about all this if Farmer is, but I don't take that sort of garbage from anyone in real life, and I don't take it from anyone on the Internet, either.

I will repeat, though, that the drug use question, both with regard to CAS, in particular, as well as to creativity, in general, is perfectly on topic for this forum, so far as I'm concerned. If the matter can't be discussed dispassionately, though, then I agee that it would be as well not to discuss it at all.

Kyberean Wrote:

<SNIP MUCH>

>
> Regarding the "gateway" theory, it is, as you say,
> merely conservative propaganda. I've looked into
> it, and have not found an iota of respectable
> science to support its alarmist claims. Even if it
> were true, then should we ban alcohol for the same
> reason? It's amusing, in any case, to be dismissed
> as a media dupe by someone who so clearly is one
> himself, in this instance.

I wish to take credit/responsiblity for this latest round of "did he/didn't he take drugs?" I was reading a particular passage that I can no longer recall and Smith's description of what it was like the morning after (in the story's case, hash) a night of cannibis excess--that screwy, disassociated feeling, not sure whether it's pleasant or not--was so on the mark that I speculated that he knew this feeling from personal experience. And I would say that "Symposium of the Gorgon" fairly accurately captures the alcoholic walk-about I've experienced when, as a more youthful pleasure-seeker, I did the same thing: roaming from place to place drinking, becoming cumulatively less and less sure of where I was, or how, exectly, I had gotten there, until awakening under a kitchen table, in the grey dawn, wrapped in a quilt, my mouth feeling/tasting like it was stuffed with a plumber's handerkerchief...

As to the gateway concept, those who discard it in toto perhaps fail to see, or maybe weigh, the circumstantial (as opposed to the causal) connection. Very few folks who become heroin mainliners start by sticking a needle in their collective arms; following the dotted line back, they often start with underage drinking, go to the easiest illicit intoxicant they can lay their hands on--which is often a propellant, or used to be glue--but might also be rope. Then to other forms of illicit intoxicants, not necessarily because the other intoxicants become "tame", but becuase they become familar, and what you're after the novelle experience. And so is your circle of friends.

I don't believe that this is a causal progression; rather, when the individual makes that first infintessimal step *toward the illicit*, they morally set the stage for trying any other illicit substance.

"Right. I'm 16 and not supposed to be doing this drinking, but I've found enjoyment *and companionship* [let's not overlook the social aspect] in doing it--and as far as I can tell, haven't been hurt in any way. I wonder if the other stuff I'm not supposed to do is equally enjoyable..."

This is kind of the way I viewed it.

As far as the harmlessness of any of these intoxicants, that's pretty relative to the individual concerned--their ability to metabolize the substance, etc. (remember that not all two pack per day smokers develop respiratory disease), and it's also subjective as to what any individuals consider harmless, e.g., I may consider getting blind drunk twice a month harmless, while other may not. They may even refer to this as "alcoholism", while I may not. In this regard, it is similar to the aesthetic matter of tattoos, where some individuals view them as a decorative expressions of indiviudualism, while others view them as frivolous, short-sighted, and symbolically self-destructive displays of attention-seeking behavior.

Me, I know, after all these years, that some of my prior behaviors have compromised my health to a certain degree, but I don't care: they are my choices, and I would like to believe that I'll not cause others any great degree of inconvenience, but who knows? I will absolutely guarantee you, however, that stuff I thought was harmless was not quite so innocuous as I had believed.

There is no free lunch.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kyberean Wrote:
>
> There is no free lunch.
>
>
Oh, there is free lunch, but it often involves gherkins.

The burden of proof is on the proponent of a proposition, and the proponents of the "gateway" theory have failed miserably in their proofs; that's really all that needs to be said on that subject.

To the best of my knowledge, light-to-moderate marijuana use has never been proven to be generally harmful, period--although not for lack of trying on the part of the ideologues. As to the business of susceptibility, individual ability to metabolize the substance, etc., all that applies a fortiori to alcohol, yet no one here seems to advocate prohibition.

I hope that we're finished with all this now!

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The burden of proof is on the proponent of a
> proposition, and the proponents of the "gateway"
> theory have failed miserably in their proofs;
> that's really all that needs to be said on that
> subject.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, light-to-moderate
> marijuana use has never been proven to be
> generally harmful, period--although not for lack
> of trying on the part of the ideologues. As to the
> business of susceptibility, individual ability to
> metabolize the substance, etc., all that applies a
> fortiori to alcohol, yet no one here seems to
> advocate prohibition.

EGGS-actky!

I don't propose prohibition, either. This isn't a "dope BAD, booze GOOD" discussion. I'm trying to say that to smugly waive one's hands, looking for iron-clad proof of direct health problems denies the phenomenon of incremental use of intoxicants. The problem is not (necessarily) contained within the drug, itself. Propensity to intoxicant use is an indicator, either a shiboleth for subcultural involvement, and the concommitant social support it affords, or it is a canary in a mineshaft, your very own canary, indicating the *personal* propensity to want to push the limits.

It's true (or at least, I agree) that looking at marijuana as the gateway to harder drugs by claiming that it "led" to it is silly. You can make the argument, statistically, that first they drank beer, then smoked dope, then snorted coke, etc. You can be even sillier by saying that before they drank beer, they drank Dr. Pepper, and therefore Dr. Pepper is a gateway drug. But few people go from drinking beer directly to snorting coke, and even fewer go directly to shooting up.

However, I believe that there is a psycological difference when using an *illicit* intoxicant, which marijuana still is in most/many places. (There's a very funny story when dope was "decriminalized in California, back in the late 70's. Public use quickly peaked, then ***dropped*** until the dsitinctive smell of burning weed was **rarer**, by far, than when it was a felony. Why, I wonder?) You have decided that, in your search for new horizons, that normal limits don't apply. This is a crucial step.

I stopped smoking dope when I was aboout 35-40. I can remember smoking some very powerful stuff that a friend brought over ("It's sinsimilla, man..."), and I hadn't smoked anything for about 6-9 months. As I lay back, listening to music and laughing, as was my wont, my heart skipped a beat. Whoa! What was that? Then it did a few more times--a little minor arrhythmia (sp?).

This is merely the normal stuff that you tolerate in everyday life, especially if you use caffeine. But dope highlights and focuses. I rapidly became aware of bodiliy pains, and aches: every place I'd had surgery to repair athletic injury was sending me a little greeting card. This was really pretty depressing, since the enjoyable focus was now not so enjoyable, being directed instead to the obvious deterioration of my body, and the forced confrontation of the leading edge of my own mortality.

And this became increasingly my exeperience with cannabis, so I gradually stopped.

>
> I hope that we're finished with all this now!

Why?

Quote:

This isn't a "dope BAD, booze GOOD" discussion.

I'm not suggesing that it is, but one cannot have a rational discussion of drug use without including alcohol. Recall, too, my original point that CAS was using alcohol at a time when it was illegal to do so.

Quote:

I'm trying to say that to smugly waive one's hands, looking for iron-clad proof of direct health problems denies the phenomenon of incremental use of intoxicants.

Hmm, don't you think that the smugness lies rather on the other side? I do. In any case, no one denies that the use of weaker illicit substances can, in certain susceptible individuals, lead to use of stronger ones. I made this very point myself earlier in the discussion. To be a "gateway", however, a drug would have to have this effect on a far greater proportion of users than it, in fact, does. Even my pal Dr. F. tacitly acknowledged this fact when he switched gears and declared that even one ruined life due to illegal drugs was far too many. Perhaps he even wrote this with a glass of his beloved Burgundy near at hand....

Your point that the allure of drugs perhaps lies in their illicit nature is an interesting one, though.

Quote:

> I hope that we're finished with all this now!
Why?

Because the discussion as it stands is getting a bit far afield of the subject-matter of the forum. As I've mentioned before, if we are going to discuss this subject, then I'd rather discuss drug use among artists, the pros and cons of drugs as an aid to imagination, drugs as metaphors, a la The Hashish-Eater, etc., as such subjects are far more pertinent to the work of CAS. Also, the political aspects of this discussion have generated some ill feeling. Although the sharpness of certain of my replies may suggest otherwise, that is something that I neither enjoy nor cultivate (although I certainly won't run from a scrap, either).

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:This isn't a "dope BAD, booze GOOD"
> discussion.
>
> I'm not suggesing that it is, but one cannot have
> a rational discussion of drug use without
> including alcohol. Recall, too, my original point
> that CAS was using alcohol at a time when it was
> illegal to do so.


This in no way attempts to excuse, or norm, his behavior (to me, such would be irrelevant, anyway), but the prohibition of alcohol consumption in the US was substantially different in social impact than the prohibition of cannibis use is today--or even in the 30's (if I recall) when first prohibited.

You had a social habit (drinking alcoholic beverages) that was *very* deeply rooted, culturally, in the vast majority of adult Americans. In a sense, it was a legislative anomaly, and one wonders at the public mood that permitted the Progressive reforms of the early 1900's in the US, even to prohibitiing private possession and consumption of alcohol. My own grandfathers, fresh from southern Europe, could not believe that they understood what they were being told (Nah. They *can't* mean that; I must be misunderstanding."), and therefore ignored the law and made, and *sold*, alcoholic beverages. This is profoundly different from prohibited cannibis usage, both in length of cultural tradition, and in the number of people who indulged in it.

So, yep, cannibis usage was targetted as a scapegoat, since it seems that people need to have something to point to as being "worse" than their own marginal habits: "Oh, sure, I may get shitfaced every now and then, but it's not nearly as bad as those non-conformists in the apartment upstairs who smoke that funny tobacco." Because the number of cannibis consumers was relatively low, as compared with drinkers, it was politically quite easy to make it illegal while allowing alcolhol to be readily available, when in reality, they are both minor intoxicants used to "blow off steam".

They each have costs, however, both personal and public. Norming for the increased numbers of alcohol users, I'd say that there's still much greater public cost associated with alcohol use than with cannibis.

Now, even when each is used in a fairly responsible manner, I'd say that cannibis has fairly high personal costs that are often overlooked: the general passivity that its use induces probably won't help you climb the corporate ladder, and it certainly has no real place in engineering. Art, and art aprecation, may be another matter, entirely. Alcohol, in sales and management positions, probably does not hurt as much as cannibis. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't really see your Type A persoanlities toking up all that much. But they will knock off martinis after hours, since alcohol does not inhibit agression, as far as I can tell, and agression is what these folks are all about, it's the recreational drug of choice for these folks.

>
Quote:I'm trying to say that to smugly waive
> one's hands, looking for iron-clad proof of direct
> health problems denies the phenomenon of
> incremental use of intoxicants.
>
> Hmm, don't you think that the smugness lies rather
> on the other side? I do.

Fine, but it happens on both "sides", as you choose to identify the continuum.

I think we'd be much better off disassociating our thinking from the notion of "sides", as if this were some kind of cultural soccer match. What you actually have is people who like to get messed up (to varying degrees) and people who don't. That the people who favor getting messed up view others who also like getting messed up--but using a different intoxicant--as somehow belonging to another "side", is really quite comical. The real "sides" are "use" vs "no use". No user can legitmately claim innocent use: there is a taint to using that must be recognised, no matter what the intent or level of use. This said, I view the choice to use/not use fully within the purview of another's indivdual freedom, provided that they do not impact me in any demonstrably negative way. I would, for example, raise a huge ruckus if my garbage man failed to get my trash effeicently, and on time, because he was either stoned or drunk. If he goes home, and is stoned or drunk, that's OK by me. If he beats his wife and kids, that's also OK by me, provided that I don;t know them, don't have to see it; and don't have to pay for their treatment. When I am involved to the extent that I have to face any of these, I feel righteously indignant, like a good citizen. And if he goes out into the public in a marginally operable condition, that's another matter, too.

I was one of the worst offenders in this last scenario, and I'm real glad that I went through those years without causing substantial harm to others. Must be good kharma.


> In any case, no one
> denies that the use of weaker illicit substances
> can, in certain susceptible individuals, lead to
> use of stronger ones. I made this very point
> myself earlier in the discussion. To be a
> "gateway", however, a drug would have to have this
> effect on a far greater proportion of users than
> it, in fact, does.

That's right: it's circumstantial ("90% of the heroin users previously used marijuana"), rather than causal ("Of all marijuna users, only 5% go on to use heroin"). Illicit use only sets the stage, psychologically, for trying any of a number of other, perhaps more potent, illicit intoxicants.

> Even my pal Dr. F. tacitly
> acknowledged this fact when he switched gears and
> declared that even one ruined life due to illegal
> drugs was far too many. Perhaps he even wrote this
> with a glass of his beloved Burgundy near at
> hand....

Wouldn't matter if he did, would it?

>
> Your point that the allure of drugs perhaps lies
> in their illicit nature is an interesting one,
> though.
>
Quote:> I hope that we're finished with all
> this now!
>
> Why?
>
> Because the discussion as it stands is getting a
> bit far afield of the subject-matter of the forum.
> As I've mentioned before, if we are going to
> discuss this subject, then I'd rather discuss drug
> use among artists, the pros and cons of drugs as
> an aid to imagination, drugs as metaphors, a la
> The Hashish-Eater, etc., as such subjects are far
> more pertinent to the work of CAS. Also, the
> political aspects of this discussion have
> generated some ill feeling. Although the sharpness
> of certain of my replies may suggest otherwise,
> that is something that I neither enjoy nor
> cultivate (although I certainly won't run from a
> scrap, either).

Ah. I see.

Quote:

This in no way attempts to excuse, or norm, his behavior (to me, such would be irrelevant, anyway), but the prohibition of alcohol consumption in the US was substantially different in social impact than the prohibition of cannibis use is today--or even in the 30's (if I recall) when first prohibited.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it was not, but my original point about CAS and illegal alcohol use was in reponse to the observation--now in itself debatable with regard to other drugs, as well, it would seem--that CAS avoided the "foolishness" of illegal drug use. I also wryly repeated my point in reference to Farmer's statement that, for older generations, "laws were not meant to be broken". That simpering platitude about the superior morality and virtues of the older generation versus the younger is as old as the age of Plato, and no doubt it was as risible then as it is now.

By the way, my understanding is that cannabis use was outlawed in the U.S only during the early part of the Twentieth Century, and therefore not very long before Prohibition (in effect roughly from 1920-1933).

Quote:

Because the number of cannibis consumers was relatively low, as compared with drinkers, it was politically quite easy to make it illegal while allowing alcolhol to be readily available, when in reality, they are both minor intoxicants used to "blow off steam".

Agreed.

Quote:

They each have costs, however, both personal and public. Norming for the increased numbers of alcohol users, I'd say that there's still much greater public cost associated with alcohol use than with cannibis.

Again, agreed.

Quote:

I think we'd be much better off disassociating our thinking from the notion of "sides", as if this were some kind of cultural soccer match.

To be clear, when I wrote of sides, it was in the very limited context of proponents and opponents of the "gateway" theory. In that matter, I do think that notion of "sides" is apropos.

Quote:

> Even my pal Dr. F. tacitly
> acknowledged this fact when he switched gears and
> declared that even one ruined life due to illegal
> drugs was far too many. Perhaps he even wrote this
> with a glass of his beloved Burgundy near at
> hand....

Wouldn't matter if he did, would it?

To me, it's worth pointing out, if only to highlight the hypocrisy and cluelessness of those who rant against the evils of illegal "soft drugs" while holding an alcoholic beverage (and perhaps a cigarette) in their hands. See your "use" versus "no use" comment, above. As you indicate, that is the real dichotomy. Habitual or frequent users of caffeine, nicotine, and, especially, alcohol, have no moral authority whatsoever to condemn illegal "soft drug" users.

Quote:

That's right: it's circumstantial ("90% of the heroin users previously used marijuana"), rather than causal ("Of all marijuna users, only 5% go on to use heroin"). Illicit use only sets the stage, psychologically, for trying any of a number of other, perhaps more potent, illicit intoxicants.

Change the wording slightly in the last sentence to "Illicit use may set the stage [...]". and I completely agree.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for CAS, I certainly did not dream up the
> notion that, at a certain period of his life, he
> drank excessively, but I would defer to Scott
> Connors's knowledge and expertise in this matter,
> should he care to weigh in here.

Since my opinion has been solicited, I will indeed "weigh in" on this issue. First of all, I should point out that if I possess any special expertise in this area, it is because I have been privileged to know many of Clark Ashton Smith's friends, Dr. Farmer not being the least of these by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, when he chimes in on a subject as it applies to CAS, we would all do well to listen.
In addition to my own research on CAS, I should add that I am a registered nurse by profession, and also that I have had extensive personal and professional experience with alcohol and drug addiction: my grandfather was an alcoholic, as are several close relatives whose names are frankly nobody's business but mine. I have also worked in both psychiatric and correctional settings, and have witnessed much of the pathology of drug abuse. Although I am politically libertarian, my professional education and experience, along with long conversations with the aforementioned relatives and friends, leads me to the conclusion that marijuana legalization would be a profoundly bad thing. I have to come down alongside Dr. Farmer on this.
Now, if I have not slammed shut the minds of those of you who enjoy an occasional blunt, here is what I have found out about CAS and alcohol: although in the late 1940s until he moved to Pacific Grove CAS was regarded in Auburn as a drunk, this was not due to any witnessed episodes of intoxication but rather to his reclusiveness and poverty. The Placer County sheriff at the time knew Clark well, in fact his father was a close childhood friend of Smith's, and he tells me that CAS was never cited or arrested for public intoxication, and that he never witnessed or heard of such episodes. CAS did frequent a bar in Old Auburn, the Happy Hour, but the owner, who was best man at Clark's wedding, describes Clark as a social drinker, as do two other patrons of that establishment: he categorically denies that CAS was a drunk, and who would know better than his bartender? CAS did drink quite a bit, mostly wine, but E. Hoffmann Price's memoir shows that he held his liquor quite well: "I can testify that Clark Ashton Smith was a mighty drinker before the Lord." That does not mean that he was an alcoholic. In 1929 CAS mentions that he had been hitting the bottle a bit too frequently, consuming up to a pint a day of bootleg whiskey, but he also mentions that he was able to cease drinking altogether. If CAS had been addicted, he would have been at high risk for delirium tremens, which he apparently never experienced. Likewise, he seems to have been drinking heavily from around 1940 to 1942, during what Carol later called his "Belsen period" (see the photo taken by Paul Freehafer in the frontispiece of STRANGE SHADOWS), but again, he was able to cut off his drinking without any trouble. Both of these period coincede with extremely stressful periods of Smith's life. He may well have used alcohol as what we nurses call an "inappropriate coping mechanism," but never to the point where he became physically or psychologically addicted (although his evident high tolerance for alcohol is worrying, but in the absence of any other symptoms is not conclusive). He cut off all alcohol use from 1958 onwards as he began to experience a series of mini-strokes that would ultimately kill him; ironically, current research shows that one or two glasses of red wine, CAS' "drug of choice," helps lower the risk of both stroke and heart attack, but in 1958 abstinence was regarded as the best course of treatment.
As far as hashish is concerned, CAS categorically denied ever using it, stating that the title of "The Hashish-Eater" was to be taken metaphorically. Don Fryer believes that later in life CAS may have done some experimentation, but I am not privy to his reasoning. In any event, the time period when this would have occurred would have been during his friendship with Dr. Farmer, who as a college student at the time would have been one logical conduit for such experimentation. So, unless the good doctor is glossing over his own youthful excesses here (:-)), I think we can dismiss this as a possibility.
In conclusion, I would like to state that we are fortunate to have someone like Dr. Farmer, someone who knew Clark well, frequenting this board.
Best wishes,
Scott

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kyberean Wrote:
> >
> > There is no free lunch.
> >
> >
> Oh, there is free lunch, but it often involves
> gherkins.
>
>
>
Ummmmm....gherkins (droll)...

Scott:

Thanks for your very interesting input regarding these questions. Your observations reinforce what I stated early in the debate, namely, that CAS abused alcohol at times during his life. (I never wrote that he was an alcoholic, as not everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic). I'm less ready than you to dismiss Donald Sidney-Fryer's claim regarding other drug use, but, like you, I would be interested in knowing its basis.

Quote:

In conclusion, I would like to state that we are fortunate to have someone like Dr. Farmer, someone who knew Clark well, frequenting this board.

No one here questions the value of Dr. Farmer's memories and observations relative to Clark Ashton Smith. Dr. Farmer's status as "oldest living", etc., etc., however, does not give him carte blanche in matters of etiquette.