Are we any better than drug dealers?

[AQuestion]

I've been thinking recently about the ethics of professional poker playing, and there have been several good posts about the subject in the Psychology forum recently.

I play in home games for a living while attending graduate school. While I do enjoy the analytical and psychological aspects of Hold'em, I have grown increasingly disgusted with the addiction and depression that I see among the weak players in the game. While some of these players behave shamefully and elicit less sympathy, I can't help feeling badly for the nice players who seem to spiral in a cycle of addiction and lose twice the money that I make (or more). I continue by telling myself that I'm only going to play for a living for the two years in graduate school. After all, where else could I find a job with flexible hours that pays $42 an hour?

To the extent that we as poker players rely upon gambling addicts to make our living, how are we different than drug dealers? For anyone outside the range of legalized gambling, it is mandatory to play in underground, illicit home games where we feast upon the vices of the addicted gamblers. Although there are no physical effects of addicted gambling, the psychological, social and financial repercussions of addiction seem the same as those that arise from drug addiction.

I would especially like to hear from those who favor drug legalization to see if they perceive any difference between drug addiction and gambling addiction. I don't know much about the medical side of things, but perhaps Dr. Schoonmaker can comment on whether the biological components of various addictions are similar.

In the end, though, I haven't really acted on these reservations. I have not allowed these thoughts to penetrate my game and play unmercifully against them. After all, I need to do this to subsidize tuition and maintain a comfortable lifestyle while being a student. Or do I? Is this just the easy way out? For $42/hr.

[AngryCola]

I would compare playing poker professionaly to being in the casino business.

It's less like being a drug dealer than acting as an independent casino. You're not always focusing on "addictions" with poker.
Sometimes you just take the money from people who are there to have fun.

[Hermlord]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not always focusing on "addictions" with poker.
Sometimes you just take the money from people who are there to have fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part at least is exactly like dealing drugs. Despite what the Thought Police would have you believe, the large majority of drug users are recreational. Only a small minority have serious addictions.

[speclj]

While an addiction is not a good thing, IMHO it still all comes down to personal choices and responsibility. I know that smoking is bad for me, and that I am addicted to cigarettes. I accept the responsibility for my decision, and if/when I am really ready to quit, I will make the decision and do what it takes to do so. The same goes with the addict fish who throw their money away to us. Many times it's not pretty, but they must take responsibility and make the choice to quit. Someone is going to get that money, why not you?

As far as drug dealing goes, I am also for it's legalization. If someone destroys their life because of it, it is almost always a product of their personal decisions.

It is not a moral issue, as propoganda would have us all believe. There is nothing wrong with any of these things by themselves, but abuse of these things makes them seem so.

There are many people hell bent on their own destruction, and there is nothing you or I can do to stop it. We can try and help when the opportunity presents itself, but I refuse to worry or feel bad about someone elses bad choices.

Perhaps I'm deluded myself, but that's my two cents...

[Mike]

I am with AngryCola about being an independent casino. That is why poker players are called 'fleas' at casino's, we contribute little and suck these little piles of cash out of the big Casino Cash Cow, taking a little here, a little there.

I think in a general sense addiction is relative to how it effects the community. If gambling addicts did not cause the community at large financial and other concerns it would not be considered an addiction. If Drugs could be strictly regulated like alcohol there would be no drug addicts, only tax income for the community. Extreme sports for example is an addiction but not yet considered in the same catagory as gambling and drugs.

In any human endeavor there are the three plus deviations people on each end of the scale. Just because we partake in their habit we are not responsible for their actions, imo.

[stonecold]

[ QUOTE ]
We can try and help when the opportunity presents itself, but I refuse to worry or feel bad about someone elses bad choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very important part. We cant just watch a human being destroy His/her life, We must try to help. If they dont want help, there is really nothing we can do about it. Just hope that someone in their family, friends or someone close to them are able to help them.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Unfortunately, I know very little about gambling addiction, and nothing at all about its biochemisry..

I hope I'm better than a drug dealer, but I sometimes feel guilty, especially when someone is clearly losing money he can't afford.

Perhaps it's a rationalization, but I remind myself that people lose $10 billion a year in my home town, Las Vegas. Most of it gets lost in other games.

And I certainly did nothing at all to create their addiction. Drug dealers work very hard to create addicts. In fact, one of the arguments for legalization is that, without the profit motive, relatively few addicts would be created.

In support of that position is the fact that in England registered addicts can get drugs from pharmacies for low prices. England has far fewer addicts than we do.

At least they could when I lived there. You would see them lining up at Boots near Piccadilly just before midnight. They could fill their prescriptions at midnight.

I am not sure that the system is still in effect.

Regards,

Al

[Dan Mezick]

Nice question!

What do you believe about the "rightness" of playing poker successfully for a living, taking money from (perceived) defenseless, perpetually self-sabotaging and compulsive poker losers?

Apparently, it's a major conflict for you to take money from people you perceive as complusive gamblers. Whether they are complusive gamblers or not is actually a separate question......many here may tell you to take the $42 per hour and chill out. Others may tell you to stop it, right now. Stop taking money from poker losers, immediately.

Are these the only choices?

"As a man thinks in his heart, so IS he." -Proverbs 3:27

"... a house divided against itself will fall." -Luke 11:17

Do you think you are behaving like a scumbag when you take advantage of these poker losers? Then you ARE a scumbag, in your own sight. What can be worse than that?

Acting contrary to your beliefs will always cause serious stress, typically leading to a state of unhappiness.

You appear to be in conflict with your own deeply held beliefs about poker, poker winners, and poker losers.

Please pick one:

1. Change your behavior
2. Change your beliefs

Wonderful choices. Are there any others? No.



The book below may help you, if you decide to explore these ideas in more detail.

Meeting The Shadow

Good luck to you.



REVIEWS FROM AMAZON:

"Each of these essays, in their own unique ways, throws the lid off of our own personal "Pandora's box" and brings us face to face with the disowned and despised parts of who we are: sexual urges, rage, resentment, arrogance, greed, envy; the list is endless."

"The editors have collected diverse opinions that point to the power, value and wisdom alive within the parts of ourselves that we most often deny, detest and fear. Readers just entering into awareness of the shadow side of personality and the worth of honoring rather than repressing it will find many valuable ideas that challenge traditional notions of 'good' and 'evil'. More experienced seekers on the paths of Shadow wisdom may find thoughts that confirm or deepen insights to unlock even greater personal power and creativity. The book is arranged into short essays, some of which come from various journals or other books. This approach allows the reader to gain little tastes of various authors, which can lead to further exploration. I found this overview to be quite helpful. Sections introduce the concept of the Shadow; its developmental origins; somatic and sexual expressions; Shadow manifestations in relationships, work and society; deeply engrossing sections about Shadow energy in religion and psychology; techniques for coming to recognize and learn from the Shadow, etc. There is much wisdom in these pages, a wisdom which does not flinch from what betrays us, does not condemn what holds our secrets and shames, does not hold false promises or quick fixes for a topic that is central to personal and societal evolution. While most people will not show an interest or ability to recognize the Work that this topic points toward, those with the eyes, stomach and heart to accept a truly polished mirror will learn much about themselves."

[dlk9s]

I'm better than a drug dealer. Then again, I play micro-limits, so if I was a drug dealer, I'd be dealing Elmer's glue.

I won't get into all the arguments and what-not (and I see nothing at all morally wrong with gambling, by the way, as long as the game isn't actually rigged), but I do know that when I play poker, even the most addicted, terrible player out there still has a chance to take my money. I sit down at a table, someone else sits down at a table and we have a competition. Skill aside (there will always be skill differences), he has just as much chance to take my money as I do to take his.

[itsmesteve]

I think that another important aspect of the drug trade that is lacking in your poker analogy is the outright violence it can cause. As long as you're not shooting other good players for your shot at the fish, i think the analogy is false. Its this violence, more than peoples concern for addicts, that drives most anti- drug dealer sentiment, imho.
Another poster also made the impt. point that most drug users, like most gamblers, are recreational and can, for the most part, afford their habits. just wanted to reiterate that one.