mjp, I love the fact that when someone provides some semblence of what happened back in the day that might even suggest that you just might be wrong, you go on the defensive like a pit-bull. I have no fucking clue whether sir John was a junkie (you spelled it junkie, but I spell it junky, que sera, sera), but hell, he did junk for a while. Never shot it, though. That's well established. But you said, and I quote, "and no good art ever came from heroin. None. Go ahead and list all your great heroin writers here - I know you all will - they are all shit."
So, no mention of "junky" there, was there?
You recently told me you love a good argument. Well, you got one.
Further, it is my understanding that most users of junk get "normal" from use, not "out there" like an acid-head. Sure, the first couple of minutes might be "hey I just might spontaneously ejaculate," but after that, it's a grounding device. Then, hell when it's over.
Then again, don't get me wrong: I will never espouse the use of that shit. And when you wrote:
"I don't find anything junkies say, and nothing they write, interesting. They don't even even make any sense, except when they are asking you for money. Which, if you know them personally, will happen every day. On the days that they don't ask you for money it's because they stole something of yours and sold it to get your money."
You were spot on. Lennon (and Clapton, et al., of course), had the $$$ to not annoy the general public. And they weren't junkies, per se. But your original premise was herion users, not junkies. Perhaps a slight distinction. Mea culpa if so.