I was wondering why you bothered with this debate lol (you tend to avoid out of boredom roid debates lately it seems is what I mean by that)Originally Posted by ohms_law
Some call me Mr.Biggles
I was wondering why you bothered with this debate lol (you tend to avoid out of boredom roid debates lately it seems is what I mean by that)
Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .
o
I don't think PED's should be illegal either. I think that sports should ban them, but I don't think they should be illegal under the law.
Some call me Mr.Biggles
so they would only against the rules for players but if joe blow wants to look buff and wants to use roids for that purpose then its his perrogative? I could go along with that so long as joe blows family can not turn around and sue the roid makers years later because joe died early from roid use...
Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .
o
Right. PEDs consitute cheating, and cheating shouldn't be allowed in sports. However, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies.
Obviously not. People can't sue tobacco companies if their family member dies of lung cancer. (Well, I guess they can but it'd be ridiculous if soemone won such a case.)I could go along with that so long as joe blows family can not turn around and sue the roid makers years later because joe died early from roid use...
E=I*R
Basically, yea.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Master of Ale!
that's pretty much been the basis of every (successful, I might add) lawsuit against Big Tobacco for the past 15 years...
o
Well, than that just demonstrates how sad our sue-happy country can be.
Hates Your Favorite Band
Well - to be fair, there are other factors that contribute to lawsuits, such as Big Tobacco aiming their advertising and marketing exclusively to kids. And a lot of good has come out of the lawsuits - changes in advertising policy, warning labels (not that they do any good, see Dennis Leary), and most imporantly money contributed to hospitals that have to care for smoking-related cancer patients (including second-hand smoke cancer patients). If no one ever sued them, they may just be making billions scott-free...and they might have even more lobbying power, to make 'non-smoking' establishments unconstitutional.
Anyway - on the whole drug thing, I say legalize it as well. Tax it, regulate it, but legalize it - get it under control and have it added to the GDP, rather than to overseas drug lord's accounts. Of course any professional athlete should keep himself clean of any prohibited substances, and be tested accordingly.
And to weigh in specifically on Clemens, yes it is a big issue, but not something the government needs to be involved in. We're approaching recession, we have a misnamed 'Patriot act' and tax cuts to examine (and hopefully not renew) and an administration that is out of control and cannot be held accountable. The fact that a panel of our elected representatives choose to take their time examining what went in or came out of Roger Clemen's butt-cheeks is a strong reason for their removal in the next election.
o
Well, yeah, when companies don't warn people of the risks and what not, than that is grounds for a suit. However, nowadays, with all the warnings and information out there, the companies should not be held accountable for a smoker getting lung cancer.Well - to be fair, there are other factors that contribute to lawsuits, such as Big Tobacco aiming their advertising and marketing exclusively to kids. And a lot of good has come out of the lawsuits - changes in advertising policy, warning labels (not that they do any good, see Dennis Leary), and most imporantly money contributed to hospitals that have to care for smoking-related cancer patients (including second-hand smoke cancer patients). If no one ever sued them, they may just be making billions scott-free...and they might have even more lobbying power, to make 'non-smoking' establishments unconstitutional.
o
Except manual labor isn't a contest meant to be played on an even playing field in order to provide entertainment to society.
If John Lumberjack wants to use steroids in order to chop down trees better, why is that a problem?
Furthermore, companies would still have the right to make it against their rules for their employees to use whatever drugs they say are against the rules.
Registered User
Some pretty good arguments on both sides here. This has also turned into a battle of political ideology.
I understand the arguments to make drugs legal. Its their body, and a valid argument can be made to let them do as they please with it as long as it doesn't effect society. The flaw I have with this, is that it always effects society. Study's are readily available from other countries experiences that crime increases when drugs are legalized. Now they may not be specific to PED's, but legalizing drug use in general increases crime. As much as our govt. gets involved in things they shouldn't, reducing crime is always something they should be involved in.
Drug abuse also is a HUGE burden on our economy. The profit gained by legalizing and taxing is minimal compared to the loss of profit from poor production, missed time at work, and a huge increase in workplace injuries or compensation fraud. Drug users are far more likely to get hurt (legitimately or fraudlently) and spend far more time on the workers compensation system. Drug abuse also is a HUGE problem on our roadways which are already very unsafe. You see the effects of alcohol (over 20,000 fatalities on the road per year) and driving.....making other drugs legal will only worsen it.
As far as congress and the steroid issue. Although I initially was for the hearings with Clemens & McNamee I am almost embarrassed to admit it. Just a circus and Congress had no point other than to get some publicity and their names in the papers.
There is an epidemic in our schools and with young athletes and the use of PED's. Congress should be investigating how to address it. There are some areas of the country now where drug testing has become common for high school athletes. Although this is a deterent, its a huge tax burden and at least in my opinion it is sad that children must go through this. Tackling the problem at the top, with professional athletes I believe in time WILL reduce the usage. I feel anyone the Mitchell report found to be using and have sufficient evidence should be prosecuted. Then maybe we will get real answers as to how many are using, and where they are coming from. Then maybe we can arrest the suppliers.
Until the athletes are prosecuted however and pressured to talk, the true reach of this problem in professional baseball can only be speculated.
Registered User
I can't say I completely disagree with you here. Drugs such as marijauna and cocaine cause addiction and lead to many types of criminal activity. Although there is evidence that PED's can cause 'roid rage' I think the evidence is limited and not enough studies have been conducted. If PED's have no bearing on our society and effect only the 'adult' user then I don't have much issue with legalizing it.
Now on the flip side; I captioned 'adult' because there is plenty of evidence that legalization increases use of drugs amongst teenagers. Its more available, hence more teens use it. Alaska legalized marijauna in the 70's and addition and use amongst teens skyrocketed. The legalization was later repealed. Although again evidence is limited on the matter, there appears to be significant negative side effects of PED use amongst teenagers as their bodies are still developing. Better availability and the advantages for scholarships and the like would greatly increase the use amongst teens which is a huge detriment. Yes it is their bodies, but it is also the country's future and children are more easily persuaded and pressured into usage. We have a moral obligation to protect their health in my opinion.
Sure, we could easily make it illegal for teens and test for it, but that is very costly in itself and kind of a backwards way of addressing the problem.
o
You make it illegal for teens to purchase them, just like with legal drugs like tobacco. Yes, they'll still get them, but they still get alcohol and tobacco, too. The key is education.
Registered User
I agree education is key legal or not....but that doesn't change the fact that legalizing the drugs (for adults) has proven to dramatically increase use amongst teens. This has been the case time and time again throughout history. When are we going to learn from it? This is only one of the arguments I have against legalization, but it is one of the most significant.
Master of Ale!
I agree with you to an extent. The only issue I have, to use your John the Lumberjack example, is that, in Canada, when he reaches his later years, and the health problems start kicking in from his steroid use (and there are many, and the surface is just being cracked), every single citizen is now paying the guy's medical bills. (Don't get me wrong...I'm not at all complaining about public-funded healthcare). I am a very big advocate of legalization of drugs, but the healthcare issue is the one big stumbling block for me. I suppose maybe a certain portion of the proceeds could be required to be invested in treatment programs and healthcare, though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
