Odd Question About Alcohol

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to say that I am very skeptical about the notion that anyone plays better poker after drinking even in moderate quantities. I suppose there could be factors at work like the first drink helping someone get past some nervousness, or the opponents overplaying because they think he is drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play both live poker and pool better after a few drinks, as it cuts down on tension.

[ QUOTE ]
But in 14 years of serious tournament bridge, I have yet to meet a single bridge player who played better after drinking. I can think of exactly one who doesn't play noticeably worse after he drinks (he's a very experienced player, expert when sober - half braindead he would still play better than 90% of his opponents.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Bridge is different. It's a very cerebral game. Poker is more about intuition and judgement a lot of the time. Bridge you have to visualise complicated things. Also there's no element of tension, unless you're playing a major tournament or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in my experience it is easier to get laid after a few drinks also. And then we can debate to death if this is a culture thing or a real chemical effect from alchohol.

But we know alchohol increases the chance of some less than desirable events (violence, accidents, STDs etc.)

If we assume we deem some of these events wrong, is then wrong to drink alchohol in situations when we know the risk for these events increases?

I'd love to say no, since I drink alchohol and quite enjoy being drunk. But I don't think I can hold my hand to my heart and say that is correct.

[madnak]

As it applies to me, I think it's a question of costs and benefits. In general the benefits outweigh the costs, so there's no issue.

In general people don't think it through, so I'd say it's more foolish than immoral for them.

[Splendour]

Quote: Is it then immoral to get drunk, to deliberately and artificially increase the chance that you engage in immoral/stupid activity?

This might vary by individual. Some people are happy drunks and some people are mean drunks. If you know your personality takes a negative turn when you drink then it probably would be immoral if you drink.

A lot of parents say they want their kids to have their first drinking experience with them. That sort of indicates that there is an inherent riskiness in the act of drinking itself. You lose both your moral inhibitions and your physical control. So its kind of risky to do either outside of the home with people whose characters you don't know or if you're operating a vehicle. Thats why we have created the position of "designated driver". We already have BAT tests so we know the level of serious intoxication is measurable.

[Zagga]

It takes quite a lot of alcohol to start invluencing your thoughts and desision ability, in comparisment with mood, anxiety and physycal abilities. Therefore after a few beers you can still think properly while playing poker, but might have less trouble coping with the anxiety and enabling you to be more social at the table making it much harder for others to get reads of you (at least, this is the case with myself, I haven't tested this with others, but this suddenly seems like a real interesting study to do. I study psychology now and plan to stay at the university as methodic researcher).

[kevin017]

some of you need to go back to health class.

the very first thing alcohol affects is your judgement, before anything else is impacted.

i do think though a study of alcohol and poker ability would be interesting. while i'm skeptical anyone actually plays better after drinking, and its not just you start to feel like you're playing better, maybe the decrease in tension > the decrease in judgement.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's a possible viewpoint for someone to take. Most likely a view of a nondrinker, not surprisingly - its very easy for someone who doesn't like drinking to say "drinking sometimes has negative effects, and has no positive effects, so obviously people should't drink." People who enjoy alcohol will argue it does have positive effects (relaxation, sociability, whatever - even if we accept the effects on decision-making are negative) and may set a higher bar for the point at which the net effect becomes negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's a possible viewpoint for someone to take, because I personally take that viewpoint [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I was wondering if others also took it, or at least considered it. I am a non-drinker, but the reasons for that go far beyond the morality of it.

[mbillie1]

If you think alcohol is immoral to drink then your judgments are bad that it is in fact immoral not to drink, which would distort your bad judgments in a "two-wrongs-make-a-right" situation.

Also, FWIW I fly charter jets and I always fly half cocked. You hafta loosen up a bit before you take the birds out for a fly.

[hitch1978]

If we deem it imoral for the reasons stated in the OP, then it can only be as immoral as not instantly going to sleep as soon as you feel slightly tired.

[foal]

Depends on the person. I don't think alcohol has ever caused me to do anything that most people would consider immoral (unless you consider sleeping in your own vomit immoral).

[yukoncpa]

Morality is only a consideration if you commit an act that causes harm to other people or their property. In ancient times, people were the subjects of kings or nobles, and as such, these aristocrats had at least a partial ownership in our bodies, hence - the illegality of causing harm to your own body. I can’t think of a modern day text that is still followed that promulgates rules and laws that use such archaic reasoning. Oh . . . wait . . .