3. On not smoking: a

I haven't used marijuana for at least ten years (before I made prints), and then only a few times. I tried hash once. My experiences were disappointing in that I had expected breakthroughs of perception or something of that sort, and found instead a state that was similar to that of a reasonably concentrated work session, with the disadvantage that I was unable to hold a train of thought long enough to retain more than a sensation afterward that I had the seeds of good ideas. The dreamy state was spoiled by my inability to control the development of thoughts and by my irritation, even while high, at seeing good ideas float off into what was clearly an irretrievable fog of sensation. Indeed, since the images that came to me while high were similar to those I normally developed while working, marijuana use seemed like going back to work in a situation that I was prepared to devote to relaxation and socialization.
    The friend who provided the pot said that I was not relaxing and had too many explicit expectations. This may be true. Nevertheless, I was left with the impression that pot offered me nothing that concentration and diligent observation could not and had the great disadvantage that much of what was experienced was immediately lost. Nor could I perceive that my friend, who was and is a regular user, was really assisted by his use of pot and other drugs (LSD for a while, and hash), except insofar as one might be aided by a sedative.
    My friend and I are not a statistically valid sample, but this has not prevented me from wondering whether pot has much attraction or advantages for anyone other than being more portable and fashionable than booze. Other acquaintances of mine use pot, many of them artists. I have not discussed their reactions to pot specifically, but as I run over them in my mind the thread that runs through them is that they all believe that an artist should be a bit zany and that something is wrong if he is not. This follows from the idea that art is born of neurosis. I am not a student of psychology, but I don't subscribe to that idea; I think Van Gogh would have done more and better work if he had had his head screwed on right. The best aspects of his work are not those arising out of his mental imbalance: reduce the frenzy of the brushwork and you have a brilliantly analytical postimpressionist....
    This is a digression, which I've indulged in because it brings me around to my reason for not using pot further. It is that I think that what is good in art comes from real perceptions, which are available to everyone, to which the artist brings an interesting point of view. We all respond to good art, because in one degree or another we have all shared the perception, and it is the pleasure that comes from finding yet a new facet to an old idea that draws us to art. Novelty turns out to uphold the understood order of things. Now it is true that sometimes in moments of intoxication or agony or something that breaks in on our usual tangle of preoccupations and permits a focus on one idea we get new perceptions; but once we have this perception we do better to return to a steady state and proceed with its development with all our senses of proportion and humor at the ready. The foolishness of drunks is notorious, and although a drunk may say one insightful thing he can rarely string two together.
    My argument, then, is that too-great dependence on pot or any "unsettler" for a state of mind in which ideas flow simply argues insufficient discipline of the mind.
    I should add that I drink alcohol daily, or very nearly, but not to the extent of drunkenness. I never drink while working.