Drugs in poker

[Jon MW]

...
The advantages of living in a democracy.  Do as you're told and shut up.  Forget about freedom of choice.
...

How do work that out as a connection to democracy?

[steeveg]

Lots of people use alcohol in the knowledge that it is doing them little or no harm. Lots of people are probably using cannabis/marijuana in the belief that it is doing them little or no harm when in fact it is probably about to unpleasantly surprise them in 10 years or so with some kind of psychotic mental illness.

i

Excessive use of cannabis may cause mental health problems later on in life.  Excessive use of alcohol may cause liver failure later on in life.  It's the same with all things.  Everything in moderation.  The reason drugs are considered dangerous is because some are highly addictive, thus increasing the likelyhood that you will end up using excessively causing the above complications.  Drugs you buy on the street are dangerous because they might be contaminated with other dangerous substances, a problem that would be solved if they were legal and monitored.  Heroine and coke are highly addictive, but drugs like cannabis and ecstasy etc have no addictive properties.  Yes, you can get addicted to them like you can get addicted to anything, poker, shopping etc, but it's not chemically addictive like nicotine.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, an extensive study was done by a large group of people including scienctists and the police, and alcohol and nicotine were actually rated more dangerous than cannabis and ecstasy.  It was that extensive that it has been recommended to the governement that they take this list into account the next time they look at the drugs classification system.

If you purely went by the medical evidence you'd have a good argument for banning alcohol and tobacco as well as what is already banned rather than making some of what is already banned legal.

i am sure if alcohol or tobacco where new drugs they would be banned, they are socially accepted drugs today and no government would get away with banning them, i think it would be very bad news for casinos if poker does get a reputation for players taking drugs, the police would have no choice but to clamp down

[boldie]

...
The advantages of living in a democracy.  Do as you're told and shut up.  Forget about freedom of choice.
...

How do work that out as a connection to democracy?

Because we voted on telling you to shut up?

[WYSINWYG]

Lots of people use alcohol in the knowledge that it is doing them little or no harm. Lots of people are probably using cannabis/marijuana in the belief that it is doing them little or no harm when in fact it is probably about to unpleasantly surprise them in 10 years or so with some kind of psychotic mental illness.

Excessive use of cannabis may cause mental health problems later on in life.  Excessive use of alcohol may cause liver failure later on in life.  It's the same with all things.  Everything in moderation.  The reason drugs are considered dangerous is because some are highly addictive, thus increasing the likelyhood that you will end up using excessively causing the above complications.  Drugs you buy on the street are dangerous because they might be contaminated with other dangerous substances, a problem that would be solved if they were legal and monitored.  Heroine and coke are highly addictive, but drugs like cannabis and ecstasy etc have no addictive properties.  Yes, you can get addicted to them like you can get addicted to anything, poker, shopping etc, but it's not chemically addictive like nicotine.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, an extensive study was done by a large group of people including scienctists and the police, and alcohol and nicotine were actually rated more dangerous than cannabis and ecstasy.  It was that extensive that it has been recommended to the governement that they take this list into account the next time they look at the drugs classification system.

If you purely went by the medical evidence you'd have a good argument for banning alcohol and tobacco as well as what is already banned rather than making some of what is already banned legal.

Be careful, I'm an ex smoker, I feel a rant coming on lol.
I bought a pack of fags recently, smoked two, coughed like hell, and then tossed the remainder by the roadside. Free of them now, surely?

I think fags are one of those products that are legal because so many were using them while they were legal, that to turn round now and ban them would cause too much of an uproar. I mean, if they didn't exist, then someone tried to bring them to market now, would they pull it off? I think not. (cf the surprisingly amusing film 'Thankyou for Not Smoking')

I do use drugs fairly frequently, namely alcohol, under the guise of 'vodka' and 'whisky'. I know that I am intoxicating myself slightly but my usage is almost entirely within government guidelines. I'm pretty confident that such a habit extended over my lifetime will very likely not cause me any serious harm.
If I were to use skunk, on the other hand, even in moderation, I would do so knowing that there was probably a decent chance (I'd guess about 1/5?) of me developing a psychotic illness as a result. No thanks!
I know smoking is probably a more dangerous drug, but it it legal: so what? Driving down a dual carriageway at 150mph is probably safer than basejumping in Central London, but I don't make a habit of it....

[WYSINWYG]

Show of hands by those who have made money in live poker by taking easy money from those who were too drunk to really play properly?

+1.

And that includes the times when I was pretty drunk but at least I could make out my hole cards

[boldie]

Lots of people use alcohol in the knowledge that it is doing them little or no harm. Lots of people are probably using cannabis/marijuana in the belief that it is doing them little or no harm when in fact it is probably about to unpleasantly surprise them in 10 years or so with some kind of psychotic mental illness.

Excessive use of cannabis may cause mental health problems later on in life.  Excessive use of alcohol may cause liver failure later on in life.  It's the same with all things.  Everything in moderation.  The reason drugs are considered dangerous is because some are highly addictive, thus increasing the likelyhood that you will end up using excessively causing the above complications.  Drugs you buy on the street are dangerous because they might be contaminated with other dangerous substances, a problem that would be solved if they were legal and monitored.  Heroine and coke are highly addictive, but drugs like cannabis and ecstasy etc have no addictive properties.  Yes, you can get addicted to them like you can get addicted to anything, poker, shopping etc, but it's not chemically addictive like nicotine.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, an extensive study was done by a large group of people including scienctists and the police, and alcohol and nicotine were actually rated more dangerous than cannabis and ecstasy.  It was that extensive that it has been recommended to the governement that they take this list into account the next time they look at the drugs classification system.

If you purely went by the medical evidence you'd have a good argument for banning alcohol and tobacco as well as what is already banned rather than making some of what is already banned legal.

Be careful, I'm an ex smoker, I feel a rant coming on lol.
I bought a pack of fags recently, smoked two, coughed like hell, and then tossed the remainder by the roadside. Free of them now, surely?

I think fags are one of those products that are legal because so many were using them while they were legal, that to turn round now and ban them would cause too much of an uproar. I mean, if they didn't exist, then someone tried to bring them to market now, would they pull it off? I think not. (cf the surprisingly amusing film 'Thankyou for Not Smoking')

I do use drugs fairly frequently, namely alcohol, under the guise of 'vodka' and 'whisky'. I know that I am intoxicating myself slightly but my usage is almost entirely within government guidelines. I'm pretty confident that such a habit extended over my lifetime will very likely not cause me any serious harm.
If I were to use skunk, on the other hand, even in moderation, I would do so knowing that there was probably a decent chance (I'd guess about 1/5?) of me developing a psychotic illness as a result. No thanks!
I know smoking is probably a more dangerous drug, but it it legal: so what? Driving down a dual carriageway at 150mph is probably safer than basejumping in Central London, but I don't make a habit of it....

Really?...I always wonder where these stats come from. I have heard loads of these scare stories about soft-drugs for a while now but most of them don't originate from Holland. I am pretty sure there isn't a ridiculously large part of the population in Holland that is Paranoid or psychotic (just me) so I have some doubts as to the validity of these studies. 1 in 5, my arse.

[WYSINWYG]

Lots of people use alcohol in the knowledge that it is doing them little or no harm. Lots of people are probably using cannabis/marijuana in the belief that it is doing them little or no harm when in fact it is probably about to unpleasantly surprise them in 10 years or so with some kind of psychotic mental illness.

Excessive use of cannabis may cause mental health problems later on in life.  Excessive use of alcohol may cause liver failure later on in life.  It's the same with all things.  Everything in moderation.  The reason drugs are considered dangerous is because some are highly addictive, thus increasing the likelyhood that you will end up using excessively causing the above complications.  Drugs you buy on the street are dangerous because they might be contaminated with other dangerous substances, a problem that would be solved if they were legal and monitored.  Heroine and coke are highly addictive, but drugs like cannabis and ecstasy etc have no addictive properties.  Yes, you can get addicted to them like you can get addicted to anything, poker, shopping etc, but it's not chemically addictive like nicotine.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, an extensive study was done by a large group of people including scienctists and the police, and alcohol and nicotine were actually rated more dangerous than cannabis and ecstasy.  It was that extensive that it has been recommended to the governement that they take this list into account the next time they look at the drugs classification system.

If you purely went by the medical evidence you'd have a good argument for banning alcohol and tobacco as well as what is already banned rather than making some of what is already banned legal.

Be careful, I'm an ex smoker, I feel a rant coming on lol.
I bought a pack of fags recently, smoked two, coughed like hell, and then tossed the remainder by the roadside. Free of them now, surely?

I think fags are one of those products that are legal because so many were using them while they were legal, that to turn round now and ban them would cause too much of an uproar. I mean, if they didn't exist, then someone tried to bring them to market now, would they pull it off? I think not. (cf the surprisingly amusing film 'Thankyou for Not Smoking')

I do use drugs fairly frequently, namely alcohol, under the guise of 'vodka' and 'whisky'. I know that I am intoxicating myself slightly but my usage is almost entirely within government guidelines. I'm pretty confident that such a habit extended over my lifetime will very likely not cause me any serious harm.
If I were to use skunk, on the other hand, even in moderation, I would do so knowing that there was probably a decent chance (I'd guess about 1/5?) of me developing a psychotic illness as a result. No thanks!
I know smoking is probably a more dangerous drug, but it it legal: so what? Driving down a dual carriageway at 150mph is probably safer than basejumping in Central London, but I don't make a habit of it....

Really?...I always wonder where these stats come from. I have heard loads of these scare stories about soft-drugs for a while now but most of them don't originate from Holland. I am pretty sure there isn't a ridiculously large part of the population in Holland that is Paranoid or psychotic (just me) so I have some doubts as to the validity of these studies. 1 in 5, my arse.

I hereby challenge you to publish a scientific study, which I will fund, with the heading 'Cannabis leads to mental illness: MY ARSE!'

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:h6pkQEKlfvsJ:www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/MARIJUANA_AND_MENTAL.pdf+cannabis+link+to+mental+illness&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6

It's on the interweb. Must be true.

[boldie]

lol..that does have pretty colours...is that to keep "the president" interested?

[Jon MW]

Lots of people use alcohol in the knowledge that it is doing them little or no harm. Lots of people are probably using cannabis/marijuana in the belief that it is doing them little or no harm when in fact it is probably about to unpleasantly surprise them in 10 years or so with some kind of psychotic mental illness.

Excessive use of cannabis may cause mental health problems later on in life.  Excessive use of alcohol may cause liver failure later on in life.  It's the same with all things.  Everything in moderation.  The reason drugs are considered dangerous is because some are highly addictive, thus increasing the likelyhood that you will end up using excessively causing the above complications.  Drugs you buy on the street are dangerous because they might be contaminated with other dangerous substances, a problem that would be solved if they were legal and monitored.  Heroine and coke are highly addictive, but drugs like cannabis and ecstasy etc have no addictive properties.  Yes, you can get addicted to them like you can get addicted to anything, poker, shopping etc, but it's not chemically addictive like nicotine.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, an extensive study was done by a large group of people including scienctists and the police, and alcohol and nicotine were actually rated more dangerous than cannabis and ecstasy.  It was that extensive that it has been recommended to the governement that they take this list into account the next time they look at the drugs classification system.

If you purely went by the medical evidence you'd have a good argument for banning alcohol and tobacco as well as what is already banned rather than making some of what is already banned legal.

Be careful, I'm an ex smoker, I feel a rant coming on lol.
I bought a pack of fags recently, smoked two, coughed like hell, and then tossed the remainder by the roadside. Free of them now, surely?

I think fags are one of those products that are legal because so many were using them while they were legal, that to turn round now and ban them would cause too much of an uproar. I mean, if they didn't exist, then someone tried to bring them to market now, would they pull it off? I think not. (cf the surprisingly amusing film 'Thankyou for Not Smoking')

I do use drugs fairly frequently, namely alcohol, under the guise of 'vodka' and 'whisky'. I know that I am intoxicating myself slightly but my usage is almost entirely within government guidelines. I'm pretty confident that such a habit extended over my lifetime will very likely not cause me any serious harm.
If I were to use skunk, on the other hand, even in moderation, I would do so knowing that there was probably a decent chance (I'd guess about 1/5?) of me developing a psychotic illness as a result. No thanks!
I know smoking is probably a more dangerous drug, but it it legal: so what? Driving down a dual carriageway at 150mph is probably safer than basejumping in Central London, but I don't make a habit of it....

Really?...I always wonder where these stats come from. I have heard loads of these scare stories about soft-drugs for a while now but most of them don't originate from Holland. I am pretty sure there isn't a ridiculously large part of the population in Holland that is Paranoid or psychotic (just me) so I have some doubts as to the validity of these studies. 1 in 5, my arse.

I hereby challenge you to publish a scientific study, which I will fund, with the heading 'Cannabis leads to mental illness: MY ARSE!'

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:h6pkQEKlfvsJ:www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/MARIJUANA_AND_MENTAL.pdf+cannabis+link+to+mental+illness&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6

It's on the interweb. Must be true.

That's not really a very good source. Primarily because it doesn't contain any details of the studies it's looking at and it doesn't contain any details of how many studies it's not looking at.

I'd say the 1 in 5 number is possible, but only if you only smoke the very strongest, and you start when you're about 12, and you smoke all day every day. Then, yes, there might be a small but significant chance of developing mental problems later in life.

[boldie]

I refer people to Mr Fisher's book. I think he's pretty much spot on with his analysis

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RyjzhFpt6RYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=link+between+marijuana+and+mental+health+issues%3F&source=web&ots=NQQWKL5MYO&sig=eeF2hMXC72bgq0quGO-mMkdgQno&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA79,M1

Sure the Weed could be an agent in cases where people smoke a lot and are predisposed to having mental health issues...but there's a big difference between that and weed causing it.

in googling for that one I also found this

;

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx

Note how they worded this;

There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past.

Really?..i had to re-read that statement 3 or 4 times and even then it didn't make any sense.

[WYSINWYG]

lol..that does have pretty colours...is that to keep "the president" interested?

We're talking about studying people developing problems with language, emotion, and cognition. Which we then present to the President for review.

[ShatnerPants]

Really?...I always wonder where these stats come from. I have heard loads of these scare stories about soft-drugs for a while now but most of them don't originate from Holland. I am pretty sure there isn't a ridiculously large part of the population in Holland that is Paranoid or psychotic (just me) so I have some doubts as to the validity of these studies. 1 in 5, my arse.

I'm guessing here.

Apparantly in Holland there are two parts of society.  Some that enjoy drugs, and some that never touch them.  So if half the population are non users, that makes it
1 in 10.  If it's 2/3 of the population are non users it's , umm, smaller ?  Sorry, getting flipant in my old age.

But I also believe that in the cafes there is a range of cannabis products available from the hardest Skunk, to perfectly innocent hash.

TBH I believe that if one goes from a non user straight onto high THC skunk, and overuses it, there is a pretty high chance that one is going to suffer the paranoia symptoms, etc when one stops.  I'm not talking about long term damage, I'm talking about a weekend user smoking loads for 2 days, then stopping.  by the time Wednesday comes the paranoia and anger will kick in.

I don't have any stats on it, but it's my honest opinion, based on personal experience.

[WYSINWYG]

I refer people to Mr Fisher's book. I think he's pretty much spot on with his analysis

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RyjzhFpt6RYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=link+between+marijuana+and+mental+health+issues%3F&source=web&ots=NQQWKL5MYO&sig=eeF2hMXC72bgq0quGO-mMkdgQno&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA79,M1

Sure the Weed could be an agent in cases where people smoke a lot and are predisposed to having mental health issues...but there's a big difference between that and weed causing it.

in googling for that one I also found this

;

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx

Note how they worded this;

There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past.

Really?..i had to re-read that statement 3 or 4 times and even then it didn't make any sense.

I'm sure weed is pretty nice n'all, but is it really worth it? Doesn't alcohol produce a vaguely similar enough intoxication, without the stonedness, and without the longterm health possibilities if you use it in moderation?

The studies I've glanced at emphasize longitudinal studies and neurological correlation, to avoid red herrings like comorbidity. Personally I've seen enough never to touch the stuff, I don't know if it's enough to reclassify the stuff as ClassB schedule.

[boldie]

I refer people to Mr Fisher's book. I think he's pretty much spot on with his analysis

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RyjzhFpt6RYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=link+between+marijuana+and+mental+health+issues%3F&source=web&ots=NQQWKL5MYO&sig=eeF2hMXC72bgq0quGO-mMkdgQno&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA79,M1

Sure the Weed could be an agent in cases where people smoke a lot and are predisposed to having mental health issues...but there's a big difference between that and weed causing it.

in googling for that one I also found this

;

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx

Note how they worded this;

There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past.

Really?..i had to re-read that statement 3 or 4 times and even then it didn't make any sense.

I'm sure weed is pretty nice n'all, but is it really worth it? Doesn't alcohol produce a vaguely similar enough intoxication, without the stonedness, and without the longterm health possibilities if you use it in moderation?

The studies I've glanced at emphasize longitudinal studies and neurological correlation, to avoid red herrings like comorbidity. Personally I've seen enough never to touch the stuff, I don't know if it's enough to reclassify the stuff as ClassB schedule.

But that question can be asked about Alcohol as well. I hardly touch the stuff and when I do I only do it because I want a taste of it..not the intoxication.Is it worth it?..I dunno, that's a risk/reward thing that we have to answer with everything we do. I personally have doubts as to whether the level of risk some people say is attached to smoking weed is accurate. In Holland we have built a fairly successful legal industry on selling the stuff and I am sure that in moderation there is no issue with it really. (Other than the physical issues, lung cancer, that might be associated with it)

[AlrightJack]

There is a lot if misinformation about cannabis and its affects and some of it is getting parrotted on this thread. I loled at the suggestion that 'skunk' is almost pure THC. For starters, skunk is only one strain amongst hundreds of different varieties, but it has been latched onto by the paranoid UK media to describe any of the newer strains. Therefore, any discussion of the drug that refers to 'skunk cannabis' is likely to be misinformed.

The strongest strains have 18-26% THC, most are around 13-15%. 20 years ago the average was around 6-8%, but then, people probably used to smoke in larger quantities to get a stronger affect. Hashish is resin that is made from cannabis plant, whereas weed, grass or any other name you choose to give it are the unprocessed flowers of the plant. To describe hashish as a giving a more happy affect because it is weaker is also complete rubbish. Hash can actually be the strongest form of the drug, but it is taken in much lower quantities than the flowers are.

No drug is safe, but cannabis has had an unduly bad press. Much much safer than both tobacco and alchohol, IMO.