Drugs in poker

[boldie]

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.

all i have to say is......WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS

ok, my non involvement in the debate hasn't lasted long.

+1

that is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read about cannabis use

Sorry - I'm not going to go into detail - I don't see why I should.  

But whilst the majority of people might not have any side effects, there are some ( I repeat , some ) that do.

It has nothing to do with them being scum ( as so thoughtfully pointed out by another poster ).  It has everything to do with being susceptible to the drug, taking the wrong form of it, taking it the wrong way ( very heavily for two days , then nothing for 5 ).  

And after many months of this, on about the 3rd or 4th day of abstainace, when the drug seemed to be clearing the bloodstream, there was a huge mood downswing.  This paranoia, and inability to express itself, showed itself in tendencies to violence - not against people , because that isn't in the persons normal behaviour.  But in violence against property.

Please don't carry on telling me this is crap, because the behaviour before and after is conclusive enough for me.  Just because it's not in anyone else here's experiences, please don't tell me what has, or has not happened in my life.

This has never happened to anyone smoking good quality weed/hashies that I know of. i would love to see some evidence of this.

I've seen it with my own eyes. 

No disrespect but eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable...especially when there's only 1. The person you are referring to could very well have done this without taking the drugs, simply because he needed to get rid of loads of pent-up agression and was, as the Americans say, in a rather "bad place" at the time. He might have been pissed off that his "crutch" was no longer there but that doesn't mean it's the drugs that caused it.

[AlrightJack]

I do agree that cannabis isn't a black and white subject. It's more usually green and purple.

[NoflopsHomer]

I do agree that cannabis isn't a black and white subject. It's more usually green and purple.

[ShatnerPants]

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.

Coming of the stuff? Theres no real come down after smoking. If there beating the crap out of stuff its probably because their scum.

These kids are probably beating the crap out of stuff, have a joint and they all chill out for a few hours, then when it wears off they go back to their anti-social behaviour.

I'd really like you to delete this, please.

It is very offensive.

WTF, how is this either offensive or warranting a deletion?

The comment  ' it's probably because they are scum .'

They're not. And short of knowing who I'm talking about, I would hope that, on this at least, you'd trust my judgement, even if it has been shown to be uneducated at times.

[AlrightJack]

But it does indeed sound like they are scum. Anyone who, under the influfence of any drug (alcohol included) starts smashing things or people up, is generally scum. The vast majority of intoxicated people don't do this.

[ShatnerPants]

No disrespect but eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable...especially when there's only 1. The person you are referring to could very well have done this without taking the drugs, simply because he needed to get rid of loads of pent-up agression and was, as the Americans say, in a rather "bad place" at the time. He might have been pissed off that his "crutch" was no longer there but that doesn't mean it's the drugs that caused it.

I've got two eyes , but one is a little droopy,  

Of course you are right, there's always that possiblity.  And I don't want to say too much because I feel I'm part way betraying a trust.  AND there was other stuff going on as well.

But there was a time before drugs.  Then there was a time of drugtaking.  Then a time ( about a year ) off drugs.  Then another period back on the drugs.

And it was only during the 2nd exposure to the skunk that the scale of the reaction was noticed.  Yes there were periods of anger without violence during the 'clean' ( for want of a better word ) time.

So when the violence returned, it was only when the pattern was noticed, and repeated, many times, that the correlation was made.

Dissapear for the weekend, take loads of skunk.  Reappear feeling loads better.  Then on Tuesday afternoon the mood swing.  And Wednesday the violence.

Again, please let me repeat.  I know this is a one off example.  But it IS real.  And I do know loads of people that don't have the problem.  ( ok not loads, but more than several )

[Pelham Boy]

Imagine my delight when i have this guy sitting next to me on Saturday afternoon!!

The mood was only lightened when a guy from an adjoining table shouts over at him "oi mate,i'm going to see if Tikay can get you a job on Sky Poker"

[ShatnerPants]

But it does indeed sound like they are scum. Anyone who, under the influfence of any drug (alcohol included) starts smashing things or people up, is generally scum. The vast majority of intoxicated people don't do this.

Look, I'm trying to read up on the stuff you've mentioned, I can already see holes in my knowledge about the drug.

But for someone who is willing me not to judge, until I have the facts, you shouldn't be willing to even think things like that.

'It sounds like' is so far off the scale.  I've not gone into detail, because it's not fair.  So not only have you not got the facts, you haven't even got my opinion of the facts.  So noone can judge on scumminess.

Again.  It wasn't whilst intoxicated.  It was between 2-4 days after stopping taking the drug.  And medical help was sought.  And got, and there is no longer a problem.  There is no violence.  Therefore there is no scum.

[Jon MW]

No disrespect but eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable...especially when there's only 1. The person you are referring to could very well have done this without taking the drugs, simply because he needed to get rid of loads of pent-up agression and was, as the Americans say, in a rather "bad place" at the time. He might have been pissed off that his "crutch" was no longer there but that doesn't mean it's the drugs that caused it.

I've got two eyes , but one is a little droopy, 

Of course you are right, there's always that possiblity.  And I don't want to say too much because I feel I'm part way betraying a trust.  AND there was other stuff going on as well.

But there was a time before drugs.  Then there was a time of drugtaking.  Then a time ( about a year ) off drugs.  Then another period back on the drugs.

And it was only during the 2nd exposure to the skunk that the scale of the reaction was noticed.  Yes there were periods of anger without violence during the 'clean' ( for want of a better word ) time.

So when the violence returned, it was only when the pattern was noticed, and repeated, many times, that the correlation was made.

Dissapear for the weekend, take loads of skunk.  Reappear feeling loads better.  Then on Tuesday afternoon the mood swing.  And Wednesday the violence.

Again, please let me repeat.  I know this is a one off example.  But it IS real.  And I do know loads of people that don't have the problem.  ( ok not loads, but more than several )

That sounds a lot more like someone with plenty of unresolved issues, who expresses their frustration through anger - and then takes drugs to make themselves more relaxed so that they don't end up being violent.

i.e. it's the skunk stopping them being violent rather than the absence of it causing the anger and violence.

[tikay]

Wow, what a great debate!

I detest drugs use, but I can't really articulate my thinking properly, (ingrained thinking, I've always felt that), so I'll not comment further.

Except to say, I don't care if they do drugs, alcohol, ciggies, whatever. But when the guy is gratouisly offensive to fellow players at the Table, I think action needs to be taken. And I know that's not easy, but forget Drugs, & drug tests - his behaviour was abysmal, but he was allowed to continue without being censored by anyone - except us, the Players.

One female player was described as a "****ing racist", & he made repeated sexually offensive remarks.

Little wonder it's tough to attract non-poker Sponsors into the game, with all that lovely free money - for us - when we cannot police ourselves.

[boldie]

Wow, what a great debate!

I detest drugs use, but I can't really articulate my thinking properly, (ingrained thinking, I've always felt that), so I'll not comment further.

Except to say, I don't care if they do drugs, alcohol, ciggies, whatever. But when the guy is gratouisly offensive to fellow players at the Table, I think action needs to be taken. And I know that's not easy, but forget Drugs, & drug tests - his behaviour was abysmal, but he was allowed to continue without being censored by anyone - except us, the Players.

One female player was described as a "****ing racist", & he made repeated sexually offensive remarks.

Little wonder it's tough to attract non-poker Sponsors into the game, with all that lovely free money - for us - when we cannot police ourselves.

This is the key..the guy was being a prat so should have been dealt with..whether he's on something doesn't matter.

[AlrightJack]

420

[ShatnerPants]

No disrespect but eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable...especially when there's only 1. The person you are referring to could very well have done this without taking the drugs, simply because he needed to get rid of loads of pent-up agression and was, as the Americans say, in a rather "bad place" at the time. He might have been pissed off that his "crutch" was no longer there but that doesn't mean it's the drugs that caused it.

I've got two eyes , but one is a little droopy, 

Of course you are right, there's always that possiblity.  And I don't want to say too much because I feel I'm part way betraying a trust.  AND there was other stuff going on as well.

But there was a time before drugs.  Then there was a time of drugtaking.  Then a time ( about a year ) off drugs.  Then another period back on the drugs.

And it was only during the 2nd exposure to the skunk that the scale of the reaction was noticed.  Yes there were periods of anger without violence during the 'clean' ( for want of a better word ) time.

So when the violence returned, it was only when the pattern was noticed, and repeated, many times, that the correlation was made.

Dissapear for the weekend, take loads of skunk.  Reappear feeling loads better.  Then on Tuesday afternoon the mood swing.  And Wednesday the violence.

Again, please let me repeat.  I know this is a one off example.  But it IS real.  And I do know loads of people that don't have the problem.  ( ok not loads, but more than several )

That sounds a lot more like someone with plenty of unresolved issues, who expresses their frustration through anger - and then takes drugs to make themselves more relaxed so that they don't end up being violent.

i.e. it's the skunk stopping them being violent rather than the absence of it causing the anger and violence.

I understand what you are saying.  But I disagree.  Your facts don't tally with the time lines.  Yes there were issues.  Yes there are issues.  But no violence.   And also, within a few days of staying off the drug, there was no violence.

The violence was only there 2-4 days after stopping smoking.  After that, no problems.  So if there was violence, but then no going out for a couple of weeks , there was no further violence.

And then taking some again after that.  And 2-4 days after, the violence returned.  This wasn't just a quick, lets be anti drugs.  This was a study taken over several years.  And the person has helped themselves back on to the normal weekly grind of perfectly healthy, non violent, alcohol abuse, like the rest of us.

But for this one person.  No skunk.  The relationship may not exist now, several years later.  But I'm not going to suggest lighting up a spliff as an experiment. It might, possibly have had something to do with hormones in the body and other stuff.

But the central contributing factor was skunk.

And a perfectly non scummy person leading a perfectly good life without it.

[StuartHopkin]

I will happily delete that post if you wish me to do so.

At no point was i trying to cause offence to anyone.

You made your post sound like a group of kids vandalising something, when in actual fact you were referring to someone you know having a violent outburst.

I have no scientific evidence but my view is that the violence must have been there in the first place. The weed may have bought it to the surface but it did not create it.

[EvilPie]

I don't know where this violence thing is coming from. I can accept that coke might heighten someone's violent tendancies but I can't see the same with dope.

Most of the true stoners I know haven't got the energy to lift their lazy arses off the sofa never mind beat something up.

I've known a few people who use a lot and you can just tell in their voices that they're lazy sods. Even when they are off it for a few hours everything seems soooooo slooooooooow and drawn out.