Quote from: TDoS on Jun 03, 2026, 02:37 PMFloor hands and booze I get, smoking, sure, but the big type drugs among those generally considered intelligent?

This sentence implies you think people who do "big time" drugs are generally stupid.  I presume BT Drugs besides Coke include Opiates and Amphetamines, not sure if you include Hallucinogenics and Barbituates, Valium, Qualudes etc.

However, regardless of which classes of drugs you perceive to be BT, whether you do them or not has little to do with how smart or stupid you are.  All drugs taken recreationally (as in not taken to remdy an illness) have in common that they are mood altering.  Whether you enjoy altering your moods utilizing pharmaceuticals and how a particular type of drug alters them isn't a function of your intelligence, it's a function of your personality type.  Perhaps you're generally inhibited or "uptight" and the drug loosens you up.  Perhaps your lethargic and it makes you more active.  Perhaps you are a conventional thinker and you get different insights.  whatever the drug does, if you enjoy the experience, you'll continue using the drug.

All drugs you take recreationaly carry the risk of at least a psychological dependency developing, even if they are not physically addicting, but in general the number of people who become dependent on any recreational drug is much smaller than the number who use them  without it significantly affecting their lives.  Alcohol for instance, far more people drink socially than there are alcoholics.  Most of the traders at Drexel who sniffed coke were within reasonable bounds, though a few  lost control and ended up in rehab.  Much fewer than the number doing coke though, maybe 1 in 20 as a WAG.

Anyhow, smart people like drugs pretty much the same way and for the same reasons stupid people do.  The biggest difference is smart people who are also rich can afford to do a lot more of them, so that probably puts them at greater risk of developing a dependency.  Most though are smart enough not to go down that road.

RE

Oops, sorry, I accidentally overwrote your post instead of replying to it.  Feel free to rewrite it, I won't delete it.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 03, 2026, 02:37 PM

Quote from: RE on Jun 02, 2026, 09:47 PMHowever, yes most certainly on any given day in the bathroom at Drexel for every trader that went in there to take a piss, half a dozen went in to stuff their noses with enough blow to build an igloo.  lol.
RE

Having never worked with scientists, engineers, economists, industry or government types who did this, I am unfamiliar with the ....why? Floor hands and booze I get, smoking, sure, but the big type drugs among those generally considered intelligent? An alien environment to me.

It's the nature of the personality type driven to do this type of work.  It's fast pace, high stress, high risk, high excitement and very ego driven.  The type of personality that likes to do stuff like rock climbing and base jumping in a wingsuit.  Adrenaline & Endorphin Junkies.


It's also about the social scene around clubs and sex, which requires gobs of money to participate in for most males who are not GQ models. The money buys the coke which you stuff up the girls nose before stuffing the other orifices of their bodies with parts of your anatomy or a variety of vibrating devices available on Amazon.  The only people inhabiting this scene are pro athletes, musicians, actors, IT entrepreneurs, venture capitalist and traders.  Occasionally Pro Poker players.  The last 3 types all are at least 2 sigma smart the athletes 2 sigma physical ability, actors 2 sigma pretty.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 02, 2026, 07:20 PMYou, as an exception, most certainly do not define the rule. 

Never said I did.  Just that for me as an individual it made more financial sense to take the risk.  Which as it turnhs out was the corredt decision.  It would have still been true with a few typical accidents as long as the costs came to less than $50K.  The only case not true would be a large liabilitty claim if I killed or hurt someone badly.  For me, I considered that chance negligible, and again I was right.  Had I been wrong,, well the injured party would have been shit out of luck.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 02, 2026, 09:47 PMHowever, yes most certainly on any given day in the bathroom at Drexel for every trader that went in there to take a piss, half a dozen went in to stuff their noses with enough blow to build an igloo.  lol.
RE

Having never worked with scientists, engineers, economists, industry or government types who did this, I am unfamiliar with the ....why? Floor hands and booze I get, smoking, sure, but the big type drugs among those generally considered intelligent? An alien environment to me.

Chump's self-image by itself is proof he has had a psychotic break.  You couldn't be any further divorced from reality.  Plus it is pathetically juvenile propaganda.  Goebbels would have puked.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 02, 2026, 07:21 PMIs that the days of the cocaine parties and whatnot? I recall you mentioning your exciting youth when working somewhere with bankers and fiscal types.

Well, I don't think those days ever ended. There's a current series Industry on HBO based on the current crop of young hotshot City of London traders.  If it is at all an accurate reflection of the current zeitgeist, they are still blowing snow at a white out blizzard pace.  However, yes most certainly on any given day in the bathroom at Drexel for every trader that went in there to take a piss, half a dozen went in to stuff their noses with enough blow to build an igloo.  lol.



RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 02, 2026, 06:49 PMFrom Wiki

Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. was an American multinational investment bank that was forced into bankruptcy in 1990 due to its involvement in illegal activities in the junk bond market

I quit before they got caught.  In my day we were not so stupid.

RE

Is that the days of the cocaine parties and whatnot? I recall you mentioning your exciting youth when working somewhere with bankers and fiscal types.

Sure, shit can happen, but in driving most "accidents" are avoidable, they result from poor decision making of the part of the driver.  The insurance tables price out based on this.  Even discounts for good drivers factor in driver error.  I don't make errors driving, so my rates should reflect the extremely low probability I would ever make a mistake driving.  They don't.  I evaluated my odds of having an accident and bet I wouldn't have one every time I got behind the wheel for 50 years.  I won the bet every time, so obviously I made a good bet. lol.

RE