In 1967, well-known science fiction author Harlan Ellison edited a science fiction anthology called Dangerous Visions. Among the works that appeared within was the story "Faith of Our Fathers," by Philip K. Dick (known for stories that became movies like Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, etc). Ellison asked Dick to (if possible) write the story under the influence of LSD. Dick did as asked (and probably would have even if he wasn't asked). Ellison, in the introduction to the story, writes the following (in part): Ellison didn't know the answer to the question. I'm posing it here. His view seems to be that by and large, mind-altering products like LSD or other drugs are going to produce trash, or at least something lesser than what the author would produce without them. He sees Philip K. Dick and others are "rare exceptions" for whom such tactics seemed to produce an incredible outpouring of artistic quality. We hear this about other writers, or about musicians, or about artists like Van Gogh who probably had some mental issues that allowed him to see the world a certain way and without which he would not have produced the art that he did. Do the rest of you think, as Ellison does, that someone like Philip K. Dick is an exception and that for the most part such experimentation with drugs is going to drag an author down rather than help him? For the record, I do agree with Ellison. I've seen firsthand some tremendously creative people self-destruct thanks to drugs, and it didn't seem to improve their artistic output one whit.