Addiction - Gambling On Meth...

[desperado]

Well all i can say is DONT GAMBLE ON METH ! dont even think about it ! once you get in to it thats it ... you will gamble all your money theres no STOP. SWIMs friends all addicted to meth and to gambling on slot machines and SWIM got in to it to =/ so every time they take meth they go gamble. And funny thing is that you dont care about winning money, all you care about is that massive doze of adrenaline you get when you gamble. So basically you will neva walk out with money and you dont realy care about that, you just want to win money so you can keep playing and playing. But when u lose everything and still high on meth you can do very very STUPID things to get more money so you can gamble. Better get with your friends and play some board or card games at home then gamble for money when you on meth.

Did any one alse had bad experience with gambling and taking meth ? post here please.

[lovelyuy]

swims friend too whenever they touch on meth, they will stuck their hand onto the mouse and keep gambling through internet, like a discease hee. But as swim say it all depend on individual and some of swims friend ( minority ) who taken meth for the shake of their work, handle it well without been addicted.

[Richard_smoker]

going to a casino is along the same lines as doing amphetamines and then going to a stripclub...the drugs transform one into the ideal target consumer for either setting...a highly wound-up, skittish lab rat, addicted to the skinner box.

but probably the worst part involves transferrence of addictive properties of the drug onto the gambling...the more abrupt the stimulant is at causing a comedown, the more one tends to expect (hope) for more satisfaction from "winning," and this false expectation leads to increasingly stupid decision-making, until finally, there's no more money in the cup.
-DICK

[big mick]

i had a mate who has lost tonnes of cash on the pokies while high as a kite very sad

[0utrider]

couldn that - in theory - be legally challenged, just like contracts (which gamling also is in a form, like every type of business/exchange of goods), which are voidable if one party was not fully aware of consquences and/or able to understand them, at that moment, due to influences of alcohol/drugs or temporary psycological illness (longterm ill people arent allowed to make any contracts at all - thus would be able to gamble without loosing money if the bouncer lets them in)? would have to be approved by a doc though..

[MrG]

Hardly, check this case out for desperate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ar/7291597.stm

Gambler loses £2m bookies claim

A compulsive gambler has lost his bid at the High Court to force bookmaker William Hill to repay his £2m losses.

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, of Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, said the company failed in its "duty of care" and the judge agreed.

But Mr Justice Briggs ruled on Wednesday that William Hill was not liable for the losses.

He ordered Mr Calvert to pay £175,000 interim costs to the firm, but the payment is on hold pending an appeal.

The judge said he would only pay 80% of the estimated £420,000 bookmakers costs after the late disclosure of key evidence.
He ruled that although the company failed to take "reasonable steps" to stop Mr Calvert from telephone gambling, Mr Calvert's "pathological gambling" would still probably have led to his financial ruin.

In summary of his ruling the judge said: "William Hill's failure to take reasonable care to exclude him from telephone gambling... did not therefore cause Mr Calvert any measurable financial or other loss."

New accounts

Mr Calvert had also sought further compensation after he claimed he had not only lost money but also his wife, health and livelihood.
William Hill was accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to gain as much revenue as possible by letting him place bets after asking it to close his account under a self-exclusion scheme.

It was alleged the bookmaker allowed Mr Calvert to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling about £3.5m between June and December 2006. During this period he lost a total of £2.1m.
The company denied any wrongdoing and said it could not be held legally liable for Mr Calvert's losses.

David Hood, spokesman for William Hill, said: "We stated from the outset that there was no case to answer to Mr Calvert.
"The judge found that no general duty of care is owed to problem gamblers and that Hills handling of Mr Calvert's calls did not cause his loss."

National database

The judge granted permission to appeal against the ruling and Mr Calvert has until 16 April to lodge an appeal.
Ward Hadaway, the law firm representing Mr Calvert, said: "It is particularly disappointing that the judge decided not to award our client any damages because he was so critical of William Hill.

"The criticism was of the way in which they dealt with our client and of their self-exclusion procedures generally.
"He found that William Hill had failed Mr Calvert in a number of different ways.

"The judgment highlighted the need for a national database allowing problem gamblers to self-exclude from all bookmakers in one go."

Reputation Comments on this post:

	very interesting find here....thanks
	Very informative.

[Pope Albacore]

Originally Posted by desperado

Well all i can say is DONT GAMBLE ON METH ! dont even think about it ! once you get in to it thats it ... you will gamble all your money theres no STOP.

SWIM says that considering the obsessive behavior that methamphetamine can cause, gambling could become a very dangerous element to throw into play. SWIM also says that one of the last places he would want to go when using this chemical is a casino. By the way, the board game suggestion is a good one.

-Pope Albacore