Drugs in poker

[Hairydude]

Scientists have found no causal link between drinking 2 pints of scotch and schizophrenia.

That's my evening sorted out then  

BUT excessive use of alcohol does have a link to mental illness also

[MANTIS01]

There is a scientific link between cannabis and Wotsits tasting good.

[Hairydude]

There is a scientific link between cannabis and Wotsits tasting good.

And Alcohol and kebabs...something you wouldnt dare put in your mouth sober

[gatso]

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

I like the random capitalisation in the titles

depressiOn and suiCide

was that to make that title more cheery?

this whole thread is lol, far too many people arguing about a subject on which they have zero knowledge

[boldie]

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

I like the random capitalisation in the titles

depressiOn and suiCide

was that to make that title more cheery?

this whole thread is lol, far too many people arguing about a subject on which they have zero knowledge

It's what I do when I'm stoned.

[WYSINWYG]

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

I like the random capitalisation in the titles

depressiOn and suiCide

was that to make that title more cheery?

this whole thread is lol, far too many people arguing about a subject on which they have zero knowledge

Presumably to make this statement you would need some knowledge of the subject. Care to share?

[cia260895]

STT

 2 players on crack
 2 on coke
2 on weed
2 on heroin
2 on alcohol
2 on e's

who wins?

[Wardonkey]

STT

 2 players on crack
 2 on coke
2 on weed
2 on heroin
2 on alcohol
2 on e's

who wins?

The dealer?

[boldie]

STT

 2 players on crack
 2 on coke
2 on weed
2 on heroin
2 on alcohol
2 on e's

who wins?

The dealer?

[Colchester Kev]

STT

 2 players on crack
 2 on coke
2 on weed
2 on heroin
2 on alcohol
2 on e's

who wins?

I wouldnt play a 12 seat STT even if i was on crack

[gatso]

Care to share?

not really no.

the reason being I've learnt from experience that these convos go nowhere. people who will quite happily admit to having no actual knowledge will still argue to the death that all drugs are evil based on the fact that that's what they've been brought up to believe and the fact that they are illegal.

it's kinda like a religious debate, people generally know which side they'll end up on before it starts.

I'd happily have a conversation on the subject in person but it's too much to try and articulate written down

[thetank]

Click to see full-size image.

FTMFW

lololololol

[bovie]

Let me say from the start i dont agree with drugs,but if you get a mix of people in any large arena you will get drug taking,and lets it be said it wont improve there performence,on the other hand if you are a serious poker player,i for one would much prefer to make an all in call on a drug taker,as they think they are mike tyson.!!! anyone agree

[ShatnerPants]

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.

Like I said earlier, I'm no expert, but I live in the real world, so I've seen what I've seen.

Skunk is, to my knowledge, grown indooors using the hydroponic systems that one sees on t'net.  And as such has a higher THC element than 'naturally' grown strains.  Ok so it's not 'pure' THC , but it is a much higher %  ( you suggest 2 - 3 times higher ).  Yes there are dozens of different skunk plants out there.  I've been told about different types, but that goes well beyond my understanding, or what I need to understand.

I'm using the term hash in an oversimplification, purely because I don't know a better term.  I'm trying to talk about the naturally ( outdoor ) grown plants, lower in THC, but higher in cannabides.  Which by the time it reaches the market comes as a little brown block. I don't think it's necessarily weaker, but I do believe it is less likely to cause the paranoic side-effects because of it's reduced THC / higher cannabide ratios.

The thing is, in this country it is much easier to get hold of skunk ( whatever 'brand' ) because it is grown in factories all over the country.  Whereas the resins are generally imported, which makes them less readily available, and more expensive.

I think talking about cannabis as a drug is an oversimplification.  It's how it is taken that is, in my mind, more important.

Drink a couple of pints a night, and it wont do you any harm.

Sounds reasonable ?  Well as long as thats a couple of pints of bitter, you're probably fine.  Switch that to scotch, and it becomes a slightly worse proposition.

Do you write for the Daily Mail. I suggest you find out even the most basic info about the plant you are talking about before you continue to spout about it. Wikipedia is not a bad starting point, but any search on the plant will do. To refer to naturally grown plants as 'hashish' shows complete and utter ignorance of the topic you seem to have such strong views about.

Hark who's talking - You have a scientific knowledge therefore you know life.  I admit I don't know the correct terms, but you haven't shown me that my basic concepts are wrong.

The way I understand it.  Plants grown using hydroponics are high in THC and low in cannabides.  Plants grown outside using good old fashion sunlight and more natural systems are lower in in THC and higher in cannabides.  These are normally seen as brown blocks rather than buds of the plant.

If I'm wrong in that, by all means tell me.  But to say I'm wrong, not back it up, and then accuse me of writing for the Mail is sheer bloody arrogance to a huge degree.  I believe you know the stats.  I believe you know the science.  But I know people that take / have taken this stuff.  And in my ( albeit merely practical ) experience, every word of what I've said I believe to be true.

I'm not talking about scientific scribblings , I'm talking about watching otherwise sane kids beating the crap out of stuff when they're coming off the stuff because they don't know how to use it safely.

So my 'ignorance' is based on real experiences in real life.

Your 'ignorance' is in treating people like shit before you've even found out where they're coming from.

[WYSINWYG]

Care to share?

not really no.

the reason being I've learnt from experience that these convos go nowhere. people who will quite happily admit to having no actual knowledge will still argue to the death that all drugs are evil based on the fact that that's what they've been brought up to believe and the fact that they are illegal.

it's kinda like a religious debate, people generally know which side they'll end up on before it starts.

I'd happily have a conversation on the subject in person but it's too much to try and articulate written down

From my experience people who vehemently present a seemingly entrenched position are sometimes actually (if subconsciously) expressing a clear, if extreme standpoint so that an opposite position can be articulated to them and they can learn from it. We call this 'debate'. Consider the alternative. I come on the forum and say 'well, cannabis eh, might be good for you, might not, the evidence is a bit flimsy either say'. Boldie then comes on 'Well, I tend to agree, I did think it was bad for you, but the evidence neither here nor there'. Heck of a discussion right there. To combat this, as well as to amuse ourselves, we adopt extreme positions *regardless of our views* so that a debate can take place. My views may look entrenched and soapboxish, but I'm perfectly aware that science can be flawed and governments nannyish, my thoughts are presented in a rigorous fashion in order for the debate to progress.
If all we wanted was the info, we have a few million websites at our disposal...