Drugs and Thought

[evolvedForm]

Does anyone else here notice the benefits of marijuana (or some other drug) for deep thought? Weed lets me tap into my psyche pretty hard, and I become almost schizophrenic as I uncontrollably pinpoint the various voices in my head. Not only that, but if I read a book or watch a movie while high, my thoughts burst in rapid succession. They are usually right-brained, creative, and intuitive, as opposed to logical.

As of now, I write down my thoughts while high, and they are interesting but require filling out (which I'm too impatient to do while stoned). As far as I know, Carl Sagan smoked a lot of pot, and an anonymous article - thought to be his - praised its benefits. Any other intellectuals (here or famous) use drugs to unleash brain power? Do you find anything wrong with it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else here notice the benefits of marijuana (or some other drug) for deep thought? Weed lets me tap into my psyche pretty hard, and I become almost schizophrenic as I uncontrollably pinpoint the various voices in my head. Not only that, but if I read a book or watch a movie while high, my thoughts burst in rapid succession. They are usually right-brained, creative, and intuitive, as opposed to logical.

As of now, I write down my thoughts while high, and they are interesting but require filling out (which I'm too impatient to do while stoned). As far as I know, Carl Sagan smoked a lot of pot, and an anonymous article - thought to be his - praised its benefits. Any other intellectuals (here or famous) use drugs to unleash brain power? Do you find anything wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just get really dizzy and sick. But I'm a weed n00b, so who knows.

[madnak]

It's great if you can sort out the pure fluff from the good stuff. Drugs can help a lot with inspiration. Also I think the context that altered states of consciousness provide can be valuable in ways that are hard to predict.

[BluffTHIS!]

How surprising that some of the most liberal and irrelgious posters in this forum are druggies. Do you also think being high helps you to play poker better? What about driving a car?

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
How surprising that some of the most liberal and irrelgious posters in this forum are druggies. Do you also think being high helps you to play poker better? What about driving a car?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post sounds unneccesarily negative. Sleeping is very beneficial but being asleep doesn't help driving or playing poker, they can/should be exclusive things.

[BluffTHIS!]

Apples and oranges. Non-narcoleptic people don't try to play poker or drive while asleep.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Apples and oranges. Non-narcoleptic people don't try to play poker or drive while asleep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, and who says we try to play poker or drive while on drugs?

[BluffTHIS!]

madnak,

Search the archives of the politics and psychology forums and you will find not only instances of both, but defenses of both by drug users.

[madnak]

I thought we were talking about this forum, as that's where you leveled the accusation.

[BluffTHIS!]

I was talking in general on the assumption that the drug users who frequent this forum aren't particularly different than drug users who frequent those forums. However if there is a difference in SMP druggies and politics/psych druggies, I would be interested in reading you describe same.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking in general on the assumption that the drug users who frequent this forum aren't particularly different than drug users who frequent those forums. However if there is a difference in SMP druggies and politics/psych druggies, I would be interested in reading you describe same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling there is a difference between Vhawk/Madnak druggies and politics/psych druggies, and that's really the important distinction here. Where's DS with a Bayesian inference explanation?

[evolvedForm]

Doing drugs once in a while to experience an altered state of consciousness is merely indicative of intellectual curiosity. In the 60s and 70s it was not uncommon for academics to use drugs, even drugs as hard as LSD (Foucault described LSD as one of the best experiences of his life). To never even try marijuana can be, in my opinion, a sign of cowardice - that or a sign of subservience to authoritative misinformation, a characteristic commonly found in the religious.

[BluffTHIS!]

Do you maintain the same for not being willing to sniff glue?

[Skoob]

Don't assume that your experience, or what you feel, while high is the same as every else's.

It's not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was talking in general on the assumption that the drug users who frequent this forum aren't particularly different than drug users who frequent those forums. However if there is a difference in SMP druggies and politics/psych druggies, I would be interested in reading you describe same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling there is a difference between Vhawk/Madnak druggies and politics/psych druggies, and that's really the important distinction here. Where's DS with a Bayesian inference explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I was wondering who this 'horde of SMP druggies' was that BT! was talking about. I mean, only 3 people posted above him, the OP, madnak, and myself. And my post was about how I very rarely smoke pot. So, these druggies amount to basically....the OP? Does madnak count? He didn't quantify his use. Am I druggie for life? BT!, you are turning into a crotchety old man.

[madnak]

I haven't done any drug in over a year, unfortunately.

[evolvedForm]

Did you ever drink alcohol?

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]

Wow, I was wondering who this 'horde of SMP druggies' was that BT! was talking about. I mean, only 3 people posted above him, the OP, madnak, and myself. And my post was about how I very rarely smoke pot. So, these druggies amount to basically....the OP? Does madnak count? He didn't quantify his use. Am I druggie for life? BT!, you are turning into a crotchety old man.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just smoked for the first time in probably a year.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wow, I was wondering who this 'horde of SMP druggies' was that BT! was talking about. I mean, only 3 people posted above him, the OP, madnak, and myself. And my post was about how I very rarely smoke pot. So, these druggies amount to basically....the OP? Does madnak count? He didn't quantify his use. Am I druggie for life? BT!, you are turning into a crotchety old man.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just smoked for the first time in probably a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

But according to BT! we are all out of control, probably communist, drug addicts. I hope I never get old.

[BluffTHIS!]

[vhawk01]

Crap, it won't let me vote for the ones I skipped the first time.

Mark down an extra 'True' for the second one.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
How surprising that some of the most liberal and irrelgious posters in this forum are druggies. Do you also think being high helps you to play poker better? What about driving a car?

[/ QUOTE ]

So obvious I hate to say it, but you sound like you really would benefit from smoking a little weed. Or drinking a beer, or taking a valium, etc.

Also, I don't get the point of this post, beyond its gratuitous negativity. So you're pointing out that liberal people unburdened by religious mores tend to use drugs more than conservative fundies? No sh*t, Sherlock.

[samsonite2100]

I voted for false on the driving one--I think it entirely depends on the person. As an extremely occasional pot smoker and extremely regular beer drinker, I would be utterly debilitated by smoking an entire joint but can drive pretty well after drinking several beers.

Also, I would take David Sklansky on heroin and with a piece of rebar through his head over a 1 ptbb micro winner in a deep-stacked game.

[BluffTHIS!]

Watson you bumbling fool,

Atheists/agnostics who possess a high IQ and no psychological ailments like schizo, man/dep, etc., are also far less likely to use drugs than the posters here who do, especially if they player poker at higher stakes.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would take David Sklansky on heroin and with a piece of rebar through his head over a 1 ptbb micro winner in a deep-stacked game.

[/ QUOTE ]


I predict that David would answer the micro guy on the last question and that you don't understand poker theory as well as you think you do. I'll elaborate later if necessary after others have responded.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Watson you bumbling fool,

Atheists/agnostics who possess a high IQ and no psychological ailments like schizo, man/dep, etc., are also far less likely to use drugs than the posters here who do, especially if they player poker at higher stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Where did I mention high IQs or whether people play poker or not?

2) Cite please, for a study done on the drug habits of high-stakes poker-playing atheist geniuses.

3) What are you talking about?

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would take David Sklansky on heroin and with a piece of rebar through his head over a 1 ptbb micro winner in a deep-stacked game.

[/ QUOTE ]


I predict that David would answer the micro guy on the last question and that you don't understand poker theory as well as you think you do. I'll elaborate later if necessary after others have responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I predict David Sklansky doesn't give a wet flying rat's fart about this thread. I also predict you don't understand drugs as well as you think you do. And if you think I don't understand poker theory, you should see the guys playing .01/.02 NL at Stars.

[arahant]

1) how come no one uses drugs 'weekly' here?
2) the results of the sklansky high question are impressive...I'd chip in some $$ to see this happen. Though I guess we need to clarify how high he has to be.


To OP - I don't use drugs to think, but solutions to problems do sometimes come to me when i'm using. Of course, they come to me in the shower, too, so I'm not sure that's an endorsement.

[bisonbison]

Of course, they come to me in the shower, too, so I'm not sure that's an endorsement.

[m_the0ry]

I love the drug debates!

BT if I had one suggestion it would be researching the historical reasons for the federal ban on marijuana. The reasons for the legislature might suprise you (hint: the superficial effects of using the drug are not one of them).

I think what disgusts me the most about the 'war on drugs' is that emphasis is placed on the wrong drugs. For someone who has no truer experience and has only learned from the government, LSD and marijuana are just as evil as heroin. And that's where the damage to society is done. Drug arrests account for a shocking percentage of prison expenses, and the vast majority are not for truely bad drugs (cocain, heroin) but for harmless ones (marijuana, hallucinogens). You and I pay for that. You and I pay for the seeds of propaganda put out by the government: "alcohol is good, buy it at the state liquor store (so we can tax it). Marijuana will make you a social degenerate."

[getajob]

i take adderall by prescription, without it playing cash games online for more than 10 minutes is... very unpleasant, to say the least.

i was diagnosed with ADD (not ADHD) when i was around 8 yrs old. Four years ago i was tested more thoroughly at a learning disability center called the Pesky Institute. There i was given a full scale IQ test using the WAIS-III (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale). To make a long story short i was given an official diagnosis of ADD signed by two PhD's. (which is needed for getting time and a half for retaking the SAT's and other tests)- I was also able to use my WAIS-III test results in applying to mensa.

So, drugs and thought are a part of my daily life..

[m_the0ry]

They gave you an IQ test while on adderall? I can't see how that's a controlled test seeing as how adderall is basically steroids for your brain.

[getajob]

mtheory... i'm not sure if ur post is worth a responce, seems a little trollish.

[Aver-aging]

Considering the 'debate' in this thread is borderline retarded, I will talk about the initial question.

Alright, I smoke marijuana everyday. Often several times a day. I can tell you, beyond a doubt, that smoking weed habitually lessens those 'deep thinking' moments. I actually get those 'deep thinking' moments that marijuana used to give me, when I only used it sparingly, when I'm not under the influence of marijuana and haven't been for a while. It's really simple actually, and it doesn't matter what state of mind it is or what's causing it, it's really all about experiencing something that you're not used to. I use to do a lot of psychedelic mushrooms when I was in high school, so much that at one point it was becoming mundane and those awe-inspiring moments just stopped happening, and it wasn't because my tolerance was raising (thats what happens when you do them consistently but I was controlling doses to make sure that never happened).

Just doing different things is good for you, especially when you want to inspire ideas. You know, "switching it up" - it's common knowledge, drugs are no different than regular experiences when it comes to inspiring creativity.

I'm a drummer, and when I haven't played drums for a while, I hop back on my kit and get all these crazy good ideas. But, if I spend too much time playing drums, my beats become predictable and uncreative. When that happens, I either quit playing for a bit or just practice mundane rudiments to get my technique better, then eventually the creative juices start flowing again.

You want to understand the theory behind the "switching it up" idea? Alright, great. Well, it's all a matter of the neocortex, that wonderful new part of the human brain that makes it possible for us to create and solve complex problems and ideas. What happens in a narrow range of time is that patterns that it interprets (whether its THC invading the brain, or a pattern that represents a drum-set) start wiring together easier and easier. When you have predictability in a routine, your brain starts forming a more tightly nit mode of behavior. You all know the typical saying "Neurons that fire together wire together", right? Well, that's exactly what's happening. Creativity takes an intricate balance of new (unpredictable) and old (predictable) experiences, seemingly randomized, constantly shifting, to happen in the brain. So, literally, doing new things is a healthy way to keep your brain young and open.

You can make the argument that drugs are good used sparingly because of that. You can also make the argument that getting in the rare fist fight is good because of that. You can make the argument that trying out anything new is a good way to inspire creativity. Creativity is the manifestation of analogy in the brain, a perfect moment when two large neural groups (representing concepts) finally connect two ideas (or hundreds!) that were separate before, into something new and exciting. The more knowledge and experiences you have and come to understand, means the more conceptual material that your brain has to create new, reliable, and inherently creative ideas.

The funny thing, I built this idea through many different experiences. I've added to it while stoned, while tired, while hyper, while sober, while drunk, while angry, while depressed, while happy, while everything! It was just being in all the these different states of mind that allowed me to do it. Pretty simple stuff.

They also say that creativity is quite genetic, and actually happens in people who don't have incredibly high IQs, but just moderately high ones (120-130 range). Could it be because people with IQs that are too high build a model of reality in their neocortex that is too 'set to logic', and people with IQs to low just don't have the logical faculties to interpret information as well? Possibly... it's at least something worthy of study.

[evolvedForm]

Interesting post. I agree with your outlook on creativity and its correlation with new experiences. Also, I've noticed the same effects when I used to smoke weed more often - as I got used to the feeling, the creativity stopped. So I think you've hit onto something.

[evolvedForm]

m,

Is LSD really that harmless? I was under the impression that it changes the chemical makeup of your brain and could make someone insane after repeated use. (These are just things I heard, so they could be way off).

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post. I agree with your outlook on creativity and its correlation with new experiences. Also, I've noticed the same effects when I used to smoke weed more often - as I got used to the feeling, the creativity stopped. So I think you've hit onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I have, I'm a creative genius. Addicted to new experiences, relentlessly experimental, prone to depression, IQ between 120-130. I'm only 21 and I've already came up with a theory and some proof to explain and interpret ethical behavior (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9304622&page=0&vc=1) .

I can't wait until I hit my creative peak at 24. I will become Jesus.

Or something. Yeah, I'm a [censored].

[getajob]

you can be a genius and not have an overall high IQ. I have a friend who has a very creative mind, but sadly he's not very bright. So his creativity often goes to waste, using it on things beyond his understanding so that his ideas are rendered inapplicable.

Often people with overall high IQ's are what is called "book smart". Meaning they're able to learn by what is taught to them or what they read. This is not a creative ability, and most people who are gifted in one area will be weak in another.

i'm aweful at math but near genius in things like problem solving/ visual reasoning.

what you wrote about trying new things "switching it up" i believe is dead on. I have a habit of getting completly obsessed with things i decide i want to do, like poker, religion, sports, etc. The problem is i pretty much ignore everything else, and i'll rarely have more than one obsession at a time.

After a while my passion will die down and i find something new, and i believe what you wrote about 'switching' it up is the reason why. I get obsessed because when i find something i'm passionate about, it's because of my innovative/creative ideas that i have. After a while of course, it becomes less and less interesting to me.

same thing goes for my use of drugs, including adderall. it's refreshing to take a long break from a drug. i never take adderall for more than a month without taking a break from it, two weeks off minimum.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering the 'debate' in this thread is borderline retarded, I will talk about the initial question.

Alright, I smoke marijuana everyday. Often several times a day. I can tell you, beyond a doubt, that smoking weed habitually lessens those 'deep thinking' moments. I actually get those 'deep thinking' moments that marijuana used to give me, when I only used it sparingly, when I'm not under the influence of marijuana and haven't been for a while. It's really simple actually, and it doesn't matter what state of mind it is or what's causing it, it's really all about experiencing something that you're not used to. I use to do a lot of psychedelic mushrooms when I was in high school, so much that at one point it was becoming mundane and those awe-inspiring moments just stopped happening, and it wasn't because my tolerance was raising (thats what happens when you do them consistently but I was controlling doses to make sure that never happened).

Just doing different things is good for you, especially when you want to inspire ideas. You know, "switching it up" - it's common knowledge, drugs are no different than regular experiences when it comes to inspiring creativity.

I'm a drummer, and when I haven't played drums for a while, I hop back on my kit and get all these crazy good ideas. But, if I spend too much time playing drums, my beats become predictable and uncreative. When that happens, I either quit playing for a bit or just practice mundane rudiments to get my technique better, then eventually the creative juices start flowing again.

You want to understand the theory behind the "switching it up" idea? Alright, great. Well, it's all a matter of the neocortex, that wonderful new part of the human brain that makes it possible for us to create and solve complex problems and ideas. What happens in a narrow range of time is that patterns that it interprets (whether its THC invading the brain, or a pattern that represents a drum-set) start wiring together easier and easier. When you have predictability in a routine, your brain starts forming a more tightly nit mode of behavior. You all know the typical saying "Neurons that fire together wire together", right? Well, that's exactly what's happening. Creativity takes an intricate balance of new (unpredictable) and old (predictable) experiences, seemingly randomized, constantly shifting, to happen in the brain. So, literally, doing new things is a healthy way to keep your brain young and open.

You can make the argument that drugs are good used sparingly because of that. You can also make the argument that getting in the rare fist fight is good because of that. You can make the argument that trying out anything new is a good way to inspire creativity. Creativity is the manifestation of analogy in the brain, a perfect moment when two large neural groups (representing concepts) finally connect two ideas (or hundreds!) that were separate before, into something new and exciting. The more knowledge and experiences you have and come to understand, means the more conceptual material that your brain has to create new, reliable, and inherently creative ideas.

The funny thing, I built this idea through many different experiences. I've added to it while stoned, while tired, while hyper, while sober, while drunk, while angry, while depressed, while happy, while everything! It was just being in all the these different states of mind that allowed me to do it. Pretty simple stuff.

They also say that creativity is quite genetic, and actually happens in people who don't have incredibly high IQs, but just moderately high ones (120-130 range). Could it be because people with IQs that are too high build a model of reality in their neocortex that is too 'set to logic', and people with IQs to low just don't have the logical faculties to interpret information as well? Possibly... it's at least something worthy of study.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
you can be a genius and not have an overall high IQ. I have a friend who has a very creative mind, but sadly he's not very bright. So his creativity often goes to waste, using it on things beyond his understanding so that his ideas are rendered inapplicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... that's pretty much what I was just talking about. Creativity can happen to anyone with any IQ, but 'Creative Geniuses' - meaning people who are successful and create useful and realistic ideas/concepts/practices - normally exist within the 120-130 range. They've done enough studies on the subject to support the claim.

[getajob]

i saw a documentary about lsd where some guy won the nobel prize for finding a new way to... decode? DNA... it had something to do with DNA research, and it sounded sounded like a significant breakthrough in his field. he claimed to have discovered the idea while on lsd, visualizing a new way to look at problem.

[reb]

[ QUOTE ]

Is LSD really that harmless? I was under the impression that it changes the chemical makeup of your brain and could make someone insane after repeated use. (These are just things I heard, so they could be way off).

[/ QUOTE ]

It is generally considered harmless, but if you are mentally unstable and/or use it very very frequently I can see how it can mess up your mind. I've only tried it twice within a month, its effects disappeared after a day, got some mild HPPD which is very unnusual but this also disappeared after a few months, so no harm done. Priceless experience. Everyone should try acid at least once in their lifetime /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
m,

Is LSD really that harmless? I was under the impression that it changes the chemical makeup of your brain and could make someone insane after repeated use. (These are just things I heard, so they could be way off).

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking to a person that makes you angry changes the chemical behavior of your brain. In fact, everything does.

But, if you're talking about permanently, I can assure you it does not unless you are genetically prone to severe mental disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression or obsessive compulsive disorder. To those unfortunate people (like a good friend of mine), there lives will never be quite the same afterwards.

However, if you're not prone to stuff like that, and you're a mentally sound person, I highly recommend it! It's a great experience to have at least once in your life. It can't do any biological harm to a person's brain, and repeated use or the quantity of dosage won't change a thing. There are people who have taken the equivalent of 400 doses (a "thumb-print") in one shot and turned out fine. Those things that you heard are simply that... things you have heard. Not facts.

[Aver-aging]

Oh yeah, I just wanted to say that Carl Sagan is the [censored].

That is all.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]


I predict that David would answer the micro guy on the last question and that you don't understand poker theory as well as you think you do. I'll elaborate later if necessary after others have responded.

[/ QUOTE ]
This greatly depends on how much prior experience David has with weed. In general though, based on your posts in this thread, I'd say you have very little idea of the effects of marijuana. Trying it a few times is completely different than doing it on a regular basis in terms of what you get from it.

To answer your questions specifically, for most people, as long as the person has smoked >10 times before, there is no doubt in my mind that the stoned guy can drive significantly better than someone who drank a 6 pack and that being high won't even come close to overcoming the difference in skill between an expert and a micro stakes player. Feel free to dismiss my opinions because they're coming from a liberal pothead, but I likely have much more experience than you do with people in these situations.

[m_the0ry]

Here's a local story about drugs and culture. Look at what a veteran police chief of seattle has to say about the "war on drugs".

http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/2/14/panelEncouragesLegalizationOfDrugs

Every substance can be used responsibly, every substance can be used irresponsibly. Cigarettes, alcohol, scissors, fertilizer, the list is innumerable. Show me someone who got addicted to heroin despite knowing a lot about the substance, and I'll show you someone who doesn't deserve to live. So whose fault is it for the lack of knowledge about heroin? The Government and the "war on drugs," because they run ads 24/7 about how awful marijuana is for you and they don't mention cocain, heroin or methamphetamine once.

On top of eliminating black market violence and state corruption, legalizing the drug trade market would generate around $10billion annually in tax revenues, and would make addicts far more likely to step forward into rehab.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
How surprising that some of the most liberal and irrelgious posters in this forum are druggies. Do you also think being high helps you to play poker better? What about driving a car?

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely not good for me to be high whilst playing. Only did it once and on a board like K/images/graemlins/heart.gif T/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 2/images/graemlins/club.gif I played the hand thinking I had a pair of aces and that I had the nut flush draw.

I was totally confused when I lost to two pair after the third /images/graemlins/heart.gif came in on the river.

Never occured to me that I probably didn't have suited aces. Didn't even occur to me that I had suited aces, just that I had aces and 2 suited cards - wierd having two trains of thought going wihout any linkage between them.

Best not to play whilst pissed either though then mistakes are much duller.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
m,

Is LSD really that harmless? I was under the impression that it changes the chemical makeup of your brain and could make someone insane after repeated use. (These are just things I heard, so they could be way off).

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking to a person that makes you angry changes the chemical behavior of your brain. In fact, everything does.

But, if you're talking about permanently, I can assure you it does not unless you are genetically prone to severe mental disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression or obsessive compulsive disorder. To those unfortunate people (like a good friend of mine), there lives will never be quite the same afterwards.

However, if you're not prone to stuff like that, and you're a mentally sound person, I highly recommend it! It's a great experience to have at least once in your life. It can't do any biological harm to a person's brain, and repeated use or the quantity of dosage won't change a thing. There are people who have taken the equivalent of 400 doses (a "thumb-print") in one shot and turned out fine. Those things that you heard are simply that... things you have heard. Not facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, everything changes the brain "permanently." The structure of the brain is constantly changing to adapt to new circumstances and experiences. Much of that change comes in the form of new connections between neurons, but some of it is much deeper and includes the creation of new neurons, the strengthening of synaptic connections, and other more basic brain functions. The idea of the static brain is largely obsolete.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
How surprising that some of the most liberal and irrelgious posters in this forum are druggies. Do you also think being high helps you to play poker better? What about driving a car?

[/ QUOTE ]

How surprising that some of the most conservative and close-minded posters in this forum have never tried drugs. Do you also think being high makes you a communist? What about blindly following all the propaganda making you a tool? Oh snap, blindly following is synonymous with 'faith', I forgot.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
you can be a genius and not have an overall high IQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least, if you make up your own definition of 'genius' you can. FWIW, I'm extremely tall, even though my height isn't that great.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How surprising that some of the most liberal and irrelgious posters in this forum are druggies. Do you also think being high helps you to play poker better? What about driving a car?

[/ QUOTE ]

How surprising that some of the most conservative and close-minded posters in this forum have never tried drugs. Do you also think being high makes you a communist? What about blindly following all the propaganda making you a tool? Oh snap, blindly following is synonymous with 'faith', I forgot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Strange he said irreligous as well. His religon is well in favour of drugs, jesus turning water into drugs, saints turning bath water into drugs. Its even part of the ceremony to take drugs.

chez

[evolvedForm]

Since when is 'IQ' equivalent to 'genius'? Making up a more suitable definition of genius would be preferable, actually.

[getajob]

annual drug deaths: tobacco 395,000, alcohol 125,000, 'legal' drugs 38,000, illegal drug overdose 5,200, marijuana 0. Considering government subsidies of tobacco, just what is our government protecting us from in the drug war? - Ralph Nader

[getajob]

arahant, do the world a favor and don't have children. (i thought about using the word procreate, but didn't want to risk you not understanding as it is important that you do)

[BluffTHIS!]

I would now like to discuss my poll, and note that a majority of the posters voting got all of the questions wrong, and everyone at this point except for myself, got the last question wrong (currently 25-1).

1) Do you do drugs?

The right answer is to never use drugs. This doesn't mean "haven't ever in your life", but "never now". Drugs harm your physical health and impair your mental abilities, and when on them you have diminished judgement and are much more likely to harm yourself or others.

I grant this is easy for me to say, as besides not using drugs I also rarely dring alcohol, but that is intentional on my part, *especially because I am an online poker player*. If you are a serious player, then using drugs should be out of the question.


2) True or False: Do you believe someone who has smoked an entire joint can drive better than someone who has drank a six-pack?

The correct answer is False, because NEITHER can drive good. The false condition is indicated when both drive badly. You might try to split hairs about the degree of badly or say it was a trick question or my answer is, but you should still have chosen false.


3) Would you rather stake in a high stakes deep stack nlhe game David Sklansky playing while high, or a sober 1 ptbb winning player from the micro-nl forum?


Note first off it is implicitly assumed/stipulated that we know the micro guy's true win rate. The correct answer is that you should prefer to back the micro guy and here is why. In a standard cash game staking arrangement, you as the staker eat all of the losses and take a percentage of the winnings, perhaps 50-60%. Since you have to eat all losses, you should prefer to back someone who has a high probability of not losing much, even though that means he will likely only produce a small to moderate win. What you want to avoid is a higher probability of a large loss. The only exception might be if that higher probability of a large loss was offset by an also higher probability of a MUCH bigger win. So since you want to limit your likelihood of a large loss, let's see how those two potential stakees match up.

The most likely reasons that the micro guy is such a small, albeit long term, winner at the stakes he plays, is that he makes too many folding errors and errors of failing to bet/be aggressive enough, in small to medium pots in situations with marginal hands likely to be best or where a semi-bluff could take down a small pot. Plus since he is so tight, he fails to get enough action and plays too passively even headsup when a scare cards comes, which lead to his failing to extract as much as he should. But one thing he doesn't do is make big errors in big pots. If he plays a big pot he has a big hand, and he excercises pot control so that he doesn't push one pair/overpair/drawing hands too far and build big pots with same where aggressive opponents can take him off his hand on later streets. This guy has to get oudrawn on/be unlucky, in order to sustain a large loss. But his tightness makes him a favorite to have a small to moderate win.

Now let's look at David, who is playing high. He is one of the top experts in poker, has more experience than most, superior judgement and reads players/hands well. But that is when he is sober. Now playing high, that intellect and judgement is impaired to some degree and he is thus much more likely to make errors of any kind, INCLUDING in big pots. So he simply has a much higher probability of producing a big loss for a backer than does the micro guy. Although he might get extra action from opponents who notice his impaired condition and can't put him on a correct range, that really requires luck for that to happen, where both David has a bigger hand and the opponent thinks he is betting or raising light because of his condition. So that can't be counted on and he still is much more likely to generate a big loss.

Because of that analysis, you should prefer to back a non-impaired small stakes winning player, even one who is playing over his head. Indeed playing over his head is another reason he is unlikely to produce a big loss as he will be playing even tighter than normal, or is even proper. In fact the biggest factor in his producing a loss, albeit a small one, is the blind costs.



Now the reasons all you guys got these questions wrong are twofold. First because your understanding of poker theory is lacking, and secondly . . . because you do drugs and can't think as well all the time as you should.

[iSTRONG]

Interesting article: a study has found evidence that smoking physically alters the brain in a long lasting/permanent manner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6378179.stm

[yukoncpa]

Hi Bluff,

I’m a bit confused. ( I have not seen your original poll ). Are we staking the micro game player to the same stakes as we are staking DS? If I have a choice of staking a high DS $100,000 or a sober micro player $20, I’ll take the micro player any day. I’ll just wait for DS to become sober.

But if you’re saying that the sober micro player can make me a better or safer return at a $100,000 dollar game than DS ( even when he’s high ), Then you are high.

Sorry that I missed what apparently was your original query. Perhaps it's even in this same thread, in which case, I appologize, it's getting late for me, and I don't have the time at the moment to peruse the whole thread.

edit - ha, now I see your poll is right smack above this post. Sorry man. Like, I said, getting late.

[MarkSummers]

Bluff

I'm sure you have researched the effects of various drugs, but reading about them and having the experience of doing them is entirely different. First of all, marijuana effects different people in different ways. Some people really have no problem doing everyday tasks while high while others would be giggling like an idiot if they went to grocery shop stoned.

There is no chance in hell that marijuana would effect DS so much that he is not a favorite over the micro NL player. You're not right just because you said you are. You may know the facts from the books about drugs, but you have no firsthand experience which renders your opinions virtually meaningless

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a serious player, then using drugs while playing should be done only experimentally at low stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
The correct answer is False, because NEITHER can drive good. The false condition is indicated when both drive badly. You might try to split hairs about the degree of badly or say it was a trick question or my answer is, but you should still have chosen false.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't begin to make sense. Does having your intestines reeled out of your body hurt more than getting a sliver? NO! They both hurt.

[ QUOTE ]
Note first off it is implicitly assumed/stipulated that we know the micro guy's true win rate. The correct answer is that you should prefer to back the micro guy and here is why. In a standard cash game staking arrangement, you as the staker eat all of the losses and take a percentage of the winnings, perhaps 50-60%. Since you have to eat all losses, you should prefer to back someone who has a high probability of not losing much, even though that means he will likely only produce a small to moderate win. What you want to avoid is a higher probability of a large loss. The only exception might be if that higher probability of a large loss was offset by an also higher probability of a MUCH bigger win. So since you want to limit your likelihood of a large loss, let's see how those two potential stakees match up.

The most likely reasons that the micro guy is such a small, albeit long term, winner at the stakes he plays, is that he makes too many folding errors and errors of failing to bet/be aggressive enough, in small to medium pots in situations with marginal hands likely to be best or where a semi-bluff could take down a small pot. Plus since he is so tight, he fails to get enough action and plays too passively even headsup when a scare cards comes, which lead to his failing to extract as much as he should. But one thing he doesn't do is make big errors in big pots. If he plays a big pot he has a big hand, and he excercises pot control so that he doesn't push one pair/overpair/drawing hands too far and build big pots with same where aggressive opponents can take him off his hand on later streets. This guy has to get oudrawn on/be unlucky, in order to sustain a large loss. But his tightness makes him a favorite to have a small to moderate win.

Now let's look at David, who is playing high. He is one of the top experts in poker, has more experience than most, superior judgement and reads players/hands well. But that is when he is sober. Now playing high, that intellect and judgement is impaired to some degree and he is thus much more likely to make errors of any kind, INCLUDING in big pots. So he simply has a much higher probability of producing a big loss for a backer than does the micro guy. Although he might get extra action from opponents who notice his impaired condition and can't put him on a correct range, that really requires luck for that to happen, where both David has a bigger hand and the opponent thinks he is betting or raising light because of his condition. So that can't be counted on and he still is much more likely to generate a big loss.

Because of that analysis, you should prefer to back a non-impaired small stakes winning player, even one who is playing over his head. Indeed playing over his head is another reason he is unlikely to produce a big loss as he will be playing even tighter than normal, or is even proper. In fact the biggest factor in his producing a loss, albeit a small one, is the blind costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an impressive attempt at an argument. Okay, first things first, a marginally successful micro player in a deep-stacked high stakes game will be eaten alive. It's not just -EV, this is like a minnow playing with sharks - his tendency to fold too often will be exploited by the other players who are orders of magnitude better. They'll read him easily and he won't get much even when he does get lucky.

As for Sklansky, first, taking too many risks isn't necessarily the worst way to play. Second, the mistakes Sklansky makes on pot are going to be mistakes of folding too often and being too conservative - the same mistakes Mr. Micro makes consistently. Finally, David has trained his mind and reflexes for poker. Most of his decisions are decisions of habit, which pot won't affect. His awareness, while compromised, will also be much greater than that of the average high stakes player, and his strong skill at reasoning effectively without allowing emotions undue influence will minimize the effects of the weed.

Do you think a 2500 player at chess will lose to a 2000 player while high? If so, since we're all fools, you should be able to make quite a bundle by making it interesting. I'm sure plenty of us would eagerly take that bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Now the reasons all you guys got these questions wrong are twofold. First because your understanding of poker theory is lacking, and secondly . . . because you do drugs and can't think as well all the time as you should.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit you're better at poker than most of the respondents. But you're much worse at evaluating the effects of drugs.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff

I'm sure you have researched the effects of various drugs

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being much too generous.

[chezlaw]

Even by your standard of justifying your prejudices, this is bad.

Which is worse A or B, neither they're both bad - is just nonsense.

Shouldn't do something because it causes some degree of harm to yourself - your just making that up, why shouldn't I do something that causes myself some degree of harm?

Harm to others: you don't believe that or you'd be against prohibition and maybe even against dropping bombs on people. You'd be a lot less dangerous to others if you drank more and smoked some pot so its your duty to do so.

chez

[.Alex.]

Madnak dismantled his arguments well (as he always does), but I still have a few questions for Bluff.

1) Why is doing drugs unacceptable but drinking is?

2) What are your thoughts on prescription pills? Many, if not most, do more to "harm your physical health and impair your mental abilities" than marijuana. Btw, if you're going to bring up the positive effects of those, then be sure to do the same with pot.

3) Why are you so certain that drugs are only capable of impairing your mental abilities, rather than enhancing? In other words, why does the best state of mental ability necesarily always has to be a sober one?

[samsonite2100]

1) You sound like a virgin trying to tell non-virgins about the perils of sex. You shouldn't have such bold opinions about things you obviously know nothing about.

2) This argument is obviously retarded, as previously stated.

3) This argument is even more retarded. A high DS would fare much better in a high-stakes game than a micro-stakes barely winner. A high DS would probably still be a favorite to make money in an average high-stakes game. A conservative low-limit player would slowly get destroyed.

I think you think you're smarter than you really are.

[madnak]

Wow. I thought you were talking to Alex and got really confused.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
1) You sound like a virgin trying to tell non-virgins about the perils of sex. You shouldn't have such bold opinions about things you obviously know nothing about.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not defending BluffThis! but this is very bad argument. We can tell someone the perils (and benefits etc) of all sorts of things without having done them.

chez

[madnak]

This is true, if we maintain proper empirical discipline. If, on the other hand, we're jumping to conclusions, then direct experience is very relevant. Scientifically it's very clear that almost every substance can be beneficial under certain circumstances. Even those behind the war on drugs wouldn't go so far as to suggest that something (even cocaine, heroin, meth) is bad for everyone or is always bad for a person.

Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of medicine knows that different drugs affect different people in different ways, that none of their reactions exist in a vacuum but must be considered within an entire physiological system, and that almost none of the relevant mechanics don't have natural counterparts. Furthermore, studies have consistently indicate benefits of substance use. The typical argument is that drug abuse is such a problem the costs of toying with drugs outweight the benefits. That's a valid argument for a "drug virgin," (and I have a valid response).

But Bluff is making absolute statements in a sweeping manner, many of which are factually incorrect or clearly ignorant. With neither experiential nor experimental bases for his position, he's not justified in making empirical statements.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
m,

Is LSD really that harmless? I was under the impression that it changes the chemical makeup of your brain and could make someone insane after repeated use. (These are just things I heard, so they could be way off).

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking to a person that makes you angry changes the chemical behavior of your brain. In fact, everything does.

But, if you're talking about permanently, I can assure you it does not unless you are genetically prone to severe mental disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression or obsessive compulsive disorder. To those unfortunate people (like a good friend of mine), there lives will never be quite the same afterwards.

However, if you're not prone to stuff like that, and you're a mentally sound person, I highly recommend it! It's a great experience to have at least once in your life. It can't do any biological harm to a person's brain, and repeated use or the quantity of dosage won't change a thing. There are people who have taken the equivalent of 400 doses (a "thumb-print") in one shot and turned out fine. Those things that you heard are simply that... things you have heard. Not facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, everything changes the brain "permanently." The structure of the brain is constantly changing to adapt to new circumstances and experiences. Much of that change comes in the form of new connections between neurons, but some of it is much deeper and includes the creation of new neurons, the strengthening of synaptic connections, and other more basic brain functions. The idea of the static brain is largely obsolete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put, sir. I totally agree.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true, if we maintain proper empirical discipline. If, on the other hand, we're jumping to conclusions, then direct experience is very relevant. Scientifically it's very clear that almost every substance can be beneficial under certain circumstances. Even those behind the war on drugs wouldn't go so far as to suggest that something (even cocaine, heroin, meth) is bad for everyone or is always bad for a person.

Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of medicine knows that different drugs affect different people in different ways, that none of their reactions exist in a vacuum but must be considered within an entire physiological system, and that almost none of the relevant mechanics don't have natural counterparts. Furthermore, studies have consistently indicate benefits of substance use. The typical argument is that drug abuse is such a problem the costs of toying with drugs outweight the benefits. That's a valid argument for a "drug virgin," (and I have a valid response).

But Bluff is making absolute statements in a sweeping manner, many of which are factually incorrect or clearly ignorant. With neither experiential nor experimental bases for his position, he's not justified in making empirical statements.

[/ QUOTE ]
his atatements are nonsense but not because he hasn't used the drugs. conversely just because we have used the drugs doesn't mean we know anything more about the perils and although we have experience of the effects that Bluffthis! may be lacking I don't see that this harms BluffThis!'s position at all - he can concede all claimed good experiences and still make his case.

Unless he actually contradicts someones experiences then the experiences aren't pertinant.

chez

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is true, if we maintain proper empirical discipline. If, on the other hand, we're jumping to conclusions, then direct experience is very relevant. Scientifically it's very clear that almost every substance can be beneficial under certain circumstances. Even those behind the war on drugs wouldn't go so far as to suggest that something (even cocaine, heroin, meth) is bad for everyone or is always bad for a person.

Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of medicine knows that different drugs affect different people in different ways, that none of their reactions exist in a vacuum but must be considered within an entire physiological system, and that almost none of the relevant mechanics don't have natural counterparts. Furthermore, studies have consistently indicate benefits of substance use. The typical argument is that drug abuse is such a problem the costs of toying with drugs outweight the benefits. That's a valid argument for a "drug virgin," (and I have a valid response).

But Bluff is making absolute statements in a sweeping manner, many of which are factually incorrect or clearly ignorant. With neither experiential nor experimental bases for his position, he's not justified in making empirical statements.

[/ QUOTE ]
his atatements are nonsense but not because he hasn't used the drugs. conversely just because we have used the drugs doesn't mean we know anything more about the perils and although we have experience of the effects that Bluffthis! may be lacking I don't see that this harms BluffThis!'s position at all - he can concede all claimed good experiences and still make his case.

Unless he actually contradicts someones experiences then the experiences aren't pertinant.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that I (and others on this thread, from the sound of it /images/graemlins/wink.gif) have direct experience with different drugs, is absolutely pertinent to the validity of my opinion about them. Aside from stating dry statistics, which BT has not even managed to do, someone with no drug experience really has nothing to offer in a discussion about drugs. Especially since, as Madnak was saying, drug experiences vary so wildly from person to person.

For instance, most peoples' ability to play poker would probably be damaged by smoking pot, but some people actually seem to benefit from it in terms of gaining an enhanced ability to creatively examine levels of thought. This is something that me, you, Madnak, VHawk, etc. probably have insights about, but BT! doesn't.

The only thing I've seen him bring to this thread are stock-response, uninformed, and extremely predictable conservative opinions. The only statistics offered in this thread were not from him and certainly didn't shore up his position.

[getajob]

'No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society.
If we're looking for the sources of our troubles,
we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity,
ignorance, greed and love of power. '
--P. J. O'Rourke

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I would now like to discuss my poll, and note that a majority of the posters voting got all of the questions wrong, and everyone at this point except for myself, got the last question wrong (currently 25-1).

1) Do you do drugs?

The right answer is to never use drugs. This doesn't mean "haven't ever in your life", but "never now". Drugs harm your physical health and impair your mental abilities, and when on them you have diminished judgement and are much more likely to harm yourself or others.

I grant this is easy for me to say, as besides not using drugs I also rarely dring alcohol, but that is intentional on my part, *especially because I am an online poker player*. If you are a serious player, then using drugs should be out of the question.


2) True or False: Do you believe someone who has smoked an entire joint can drive better than someone who has drank a six-pack?

The correct answer is False, because NEITHER can drive good. The false condition is indicated when both drive badly. You might try to split hairs about the degree of badly or say it was a trick question or my answer is, but you should still have chosen false.


3) Would you rather stake in a high stakes deep stack nlhe game David Sklansky playing while high, or a sober 1 ptbb winning player from the micro-nl forum?


Note first off it is implicitly assumed/stipulated that we know the micro guy's true win rate. The correct answer is that you should prefer to back the micro guy and here is why. In a standard cash game staking arrangement, you as the staker eat all of the losses and take a percentage of the winnings, perhaps 50-60%. Since you have to eat all losses, you should prefer to back someone who has a high probability of not losing much, even though that means he will likely only produce a small to moderate win. What you want to avoid is a higher probability of a large loss. The only exception might be if that higher probability of a large loss was offset by an also higher probability of a MUCH bigger win. So since you want to limit your likelihood of a large loss, let's see how those two potential stakees match up.

The most likely reasons that the micro guy is such a small, albeit long term, winner at the stakes he plays, is that he makes too many folding errors and errors of failing to bet/be aggressive enough, in small to medium pots in situations with marginal hands likely to be best or where a semi-bluff could take down a small pot. Plus since he is so tight, he fails to get enough action and plays too passively even headsup when a scare cards comes, which lead to his failing to extract as much as he should. But one thing he doesn't do is make big errors in big pots. If he plays a big pot he has a big hand, and he excercises pot control so that he doesn't push one pair/overpair/drawing hands too far and build big pots with same where aggressive opponents can take him off his hand on later streets. This guy has to get oudrawn on/be unlucky, in order to sustain a large loss. But his tightness makes him a favorite to have a small to moderate win.

Now let's look at David, who is playing high. He is one of the top experts in poker, has more experience than most, superior judgement and reads players/hands well. But that is when he is sober. Now playing high, that intellect and judgement is impaired to some degree and he is thus much more likely to make errors of any kind, INCLUDING in big pots. So he simply has a much higher probability of producing a big loss for a backer than does the micro guy. Although he might get extra action from opponents who notice his impaired condition and can't put him on a correct range, that really requires luck for that to happen, where both David has a bigger hand and the opponent thinks he is betting or raising light because of his condition. So that can't be counted on and he still is much more likely to generate a big loss.

Because of that analysis, you should prefer to back a non-impaired small stakes winning player, even one who is playing over his head. Indeed playing over his head is another reason he is unlikely to produce a big loss as he will be playing even tighter than normal, or is even proper. In fact the biggest factor in his producing a loss, albeit a small one, is the blind costs.



Now the reasons all you guys got these questions wrong are twofold. First because your understanding of poker theory is lacking, and secondly . . . because you do drugs and can't think as well all the time as you should.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are not smart. Your explanation of Poll Question #2 is all the support I need.

[hmkpoker]

I find that marijuana lowers my mental anxiety, which in some ways helps me to slow down and take a look at life from a more relaxed point of view, but I don't think I'd go as far to say that it's mind-expanding. Marijuana makes serious left-brained activities impossible for me. I've tried to discuss economics and politics while high, and I find myself too dumb to even keep up with the conversation. It also makes me very lazy and makes it difficult to move life forward (which is why I've stopped lately).

What marijuana does is it makes sensory input more pleasurable, and makes you more inclined to have sensory experiences and express your feelings. It also makes your time preference much higher, making you inclined to procrastinate and screw off; good for immediate satisfaction, but bad if you're trying to make something of yourself.

As far as all of these things go, acid is much better. THe lucid state is much clearer and the lingering "enlightened" effects stay with you MUCH longer.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is true, if we maintain proper empirical discipline. If, on the other hand, we're jumping to conclusions, then direct experience is very relevant. Scientifically it's very clear that almost every substance can be beneficial under certain circumstances. Even those behind the war on drugs wouldn't go so far as to suggest that something (even cocaine, heroin, meth) is bad for everyone or is always bad for a person.

Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of medicine knows that different drugs affect different people in different ways, that none of their reactions exist in a vacuum but must be considered within an entire physiological system, and that almost none of the relevant mechanics don't have natural counterparts. Furthermore, studies have consistently indicate benefits of substance use. The typical argument is that drug abuse is such a problem the costs of toying with drugs outweight the benefits. That's a valid argument for a "drug virgin," (and I have a valid response).

But Bluff is making absolute statements in a sweeping manner, many of which are factually incorrect or clearly ignorant. With neither experiential nor experimental bases for his position, he's not justified in making empirical statements.

[/ QUOTE ]
his atatements are nonsense but not because he hasn't used the drugs. conversely just because we have used the drugs doesn't mean we know anything more about the perils and although we have experience of the effects that Bluffthis! may be lacking I don't see that this harms BluffThis!'s position at all - he can concede all claimed good experiences and still make his case.

Unless he actually contradicts someones experiences then the experiences aren't pertinant.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that I (and others on this thread, from the sound of it /images/graemlins/wink.gif) have direct experience with different drugs, is absolutely pertinent to the validity of my opinion about them. Aside from stating dry statistics, which BT has not even managed to do, someone with no drug experience really has nothing to offer in a discussion about drugs. Especially since, as Madnak was saying, drug experiences vary so wildly from person to person.

For instance, most peoples' ability to play poker would probably be damaged by smoking pot, but some people actually seem to benefit from it in terms of gaining an enhanced ability to creatively examine levels of thought. This is something that me, you, Madnak, VHawk, etc. probably have insights about, but BT! doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but the dispute is not about the experience. As i said before, Bluffthis! can concede that we are all 100% accurate about our experiences and it doesn't change anything about the argument.

The main arguments are normally that drugs are detrimental to the long term well-being of the user or that there's some danger each time they are used. The only way of proving or disproving these is scientific studies and bluffthis! is not less able to understand these than a user.

The other argument is some sort of moral garbage but none of the garbage is caused by drug use or non-use, although the converse may be true.

chez

[snappo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are a serious player, then using drugs while playing should be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]