From: bagg@ellis.uchicago.edu (matthew john baggott)
Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote
Subject: Re: On Drugs, Bebop and The Wire
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:19:13 GMT
Reply-To: bagg@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Dec29.034842.28962@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> mingus@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Damballah Wedo) writes:

>While Lewis generally gets his facts straight, he weaves them
>into a fabric that fundamentally, dangerously understates the
>scourge that heroin visited on jazz and jazz musicians. He
>never quite says this, but his approach to the subject is rather
>too light and airy. For instance: "Other musicians simply
>outgrew their habits -- a maturing which often happens in the mid
>to late 30s." Or: "it seems that most of the addicted musicians
>managed their habit to the extent that they could function as
>musicians." Or: "[heroin] lets you concentrate and takes you away
>from everything. Heroin is a working drug."

I don't particularly want to extend this thread into areas that
aren't relevant to r.m.bluenote, but I feel compelled to add:

I haven't seen the article in question, but from the statements quoted
above, it seems far more realistic than most discussions I've seen of
drugs in the popular media, even if it does err in terms of
understating the problems associated with heroin use.

The first quoted statement here (outgrowing the drug) has substantial
support in the scientific literature.  It is very difficult to estimate
what percentage of regular users quit on their own like this, but it
is a measurable, known phenomenon.  There is also a large population of
users known as "chippers" who control their intake and don't fall
victim to the escalating dosage cycle of the sterotypical addict.

The second statement quoted seems plausible, although it doesn't address 
the question of whether the musicians' work suffered.  

The third quoted statement I would consider shaky.  Some drugs, like 
nicotine, do raise the threshold level for stimuli to become noticable.
I don't know that this is the case for heroin.  The more
relevant fact, though, is that opiates slow many types of cognition
and interfere with motor performance.  You can still work on it, but
your work will probably suffer.  The degree to which this happens will
depend on one's level of use.

Interestingly, studies have found upper and middle class heroin users
to be indistinguishable from the general population, while poorer
heroin users have shorter life spans and increased incidence of several
different health problems.  This suggests that much of the damage caused
by the drug is related to extrinsic, not intrinsic factors.

So, from my reading of the literature, I'd say the bottom line is that
heroin use will probably not help a musician (I have seen no studies
that indicate it would help your lungs btw and see no reason to think
it would), but it will not necessarily cause a musician severe problems,
particularly if they smoke rather than inject.

It is unfortunate that heroin use is 'cool' in some subcultures.  Good
musicianship is far cooler.  And when heroin use gets out of hand, it
is sad.  However, I would ultimately regard heroin abuse as being as much 
a sign that things are not well as it is a cause of problems.  This
last paragraph is just my opinion.  

>-- 
>Marcel-Franck Simon             	mingus@usl.com, usl!mingus
>
>	" Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale'
>	  Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "

    --Matt Baggott, pharmacologist wannabe and alt.drugs regular