Steroids

[Frijolito]

Their not legal in the manner in which their being used.

As to Alcohol and Tobacco, I don't see how their comparable. Some people have problems with addiction, but far fewer people have problems with being addicted to Alcohol or Tobacco than there are with Coke, Meth, Heroine, etc...
Well, maybe not Tobacco, but the effects of Tobacco addiction are more on par with Caffeine addiction then with, say Meth. I don't see anyone here advocating Coffee being banned.

Yeah their aren't that many alcholics out their I think you just made his point for him...

[filihok]

He's saying that alcohol and cigarettes being legal hasn't dropped their use in kids, so legalizing steroids won't either. I think.

I'm saying that legal or not legal substances will be abused.

Illegal drugs are abused; by children and adults.

Prescription drugs are abused; by children and adults.

I'm not saying steroids should be legal, I'm not saying they shouldn't be legal. I'm saying either way there will be problems.

[dickay]

That's what every drug legalization conversation ends up at, at some point.

Because there are many studies, places where drugs have been legalized and it has been a failure. Drug use and addiction rose, burden on health care rose, black market sales of substandard drugs rose.....no I'm not going to post links again. Been there done that in these forums too often. If you are going to post for something as dangerous as legalizing drugs, I'd hoped you'd have researched it already.

So, that means that it's because professional players take them, the lower levels take them also? I think it has nothing to do with "influence" from professional players, but rather everything to do with the pressure to succeed. There's a difference.

The 'pressure to succeed' gets more an more difficult when the bar is continually raised...as what happens when pros inadvertantly advocate drug use by doing drugs themselves. There has always been pressure to succeed.....now theres greater availability and acceptance of a way to cheat. Kids will be kids.

We obviously disagree about the legality of it, because I think they should be perfectly legal for adults. I think the way to combat it is to educate kids about the dangers, though, and not to prevent adults from using it. Making it illegal for adults doesn't stop kids from doing it, as is proven by other drugs

Do as I say not as I do. That works well...working great with Alcohol. I direct you to the statistics about under-age drinking and youth alcohol related fatalities.

How exactly do you propose to do that? No one has been able to do it with any drug so far, and from all indications the attempts have made the problems worse...

Not true...as funny as it seems, during the Reagan Administration, the 'Just say No' campaign did have an effect. Of course it was coupled with a significant investment in drug control. Seriously preaching about it is not enough....Pro sports, college athletics, all the way down have to implement very harsh measures. To date, that has not been done. Very little has been done in forms of education. We could do so much more.

[dickay]

That's what every drug legalization conversation ends up at, at some point.

Because thats the truth. It is what it is. Addiction starts often in youth, when we are naive and uneducated.

[ohms_law]

Problems, sure. There's almost guaranteed to be fewer problems if their legal though, without even getting into the subject of punishment vs. treatment for a behavioral/psychological issue.

[dickay]

He's saying that alcohol and cigarettes being legal hasn't dropped their use in kids, so legalizing steroids won't either. I think.

You are right in the fact legalization of alcohol and cigarettes hasn't dropped use in kids. It in fact has increased it. They are simply more available and accepted in society REGARDLESS of their known health related issues. Thats not a good thing from whichever direction you want to look at it.

[filihok]

I want to look at it from the direction of a tobacco company executive

or from a goverment official who takes "contributions" for the esteemed gentleman referred to previously in this post.

[ohms_law]

Not true...as funny as it seems, during the Reagan Administration, the 'Just say No' campaign did have an effect. Of course it was coupled with a significant investment in drug control. Seriously preaching about it is not enough....Pro sports, college athletics, all the way down have to implement very harsh measures. To date, that has not been done. Very little has been done in forms of education. We could do so much more.

Well... that's the end of this debate then (again). We just have fundamentally different views of what's been successful and what hasn't. Regan (and Nixon) actually worsened the problem.
*shrug*

[filihok]

You deleted it but

One youth alcohol related death is too many, or does that line of thinking only apply to pitches near the head?

you also deleted that there are studies showing both view points. Clearly, the real answer is "we don't know"

[dickay]

Problems, sure. There's almost guaranteed to be fewer problems if their legal though, without even getting into the subject of punishment vs. treatment for a behavioral/psychological issue.

Fewer problems, only to the point that society becomes more accepting of the health related issues the use of these drugs cause. If I accept a 'problem' as is it then is not a problem anymore.

6500 teenagers die every year in automobile crashes and most of them are related to alcohol use. Nearly 30,000 American die every year in automobile accidents related to alcohol use. After 10:00PM 1 in every 5 drivers are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I teach defensive driving......these are only driving related stats which I have on the tip of my tongue. 2 in every 5 adults will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their lives.

You don't hear any of those number because society now accepts them. Unless you have a friend, family member, or loved one die or get seriously hurt in one of these incidents you may never hear them. I had a cousin pass January 20th of this year, 15 years old driving with a 16 year old. It is believe alcohol was involved. I don't want to see the day where our society accepts the deaths of thousands of more children and people because they thought it was easier to legalize drugs period.

There is no turning back on cigarettes or alcohol. They are ingrained in our society. There is no reason to make the same mistake again.

[dickay]

You deleted it but

One youth alcohol related death is too many, or does that line of thinking only apply to pitches near the head?

you also deleted that there are studies showing both view points. Clearly, the real answer is "we don't know"

I was thinking the same thing about the pitches to the head lol.

Sure its not fair, different issues.....but interesting twist.

[OldFatGuy]

Fewer problems, only to the point that society becomes more accepting of the health related issues the use of these drugs cause. If I accept a 'problem' as is it then is not a problem anymore.

6500 teenagers die every year in automobile crashes and most of them are related to alcohol use. Nearly 30,000 American die every year in automobile accidents related to alcohol use. After 10:00PM 1 in every 5 drivers are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I teach defensive driving......these are only driving related stats which I have on the tip of my tongue. 2 in every 5 adults will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their lives.

You don't hear any of those number because society now accepts them. Unless you have a friend, family member, or loved one die or get seriously hurt in one of these incidents you may never hear them. I had a cousin pass January 20th of this year, 15 years old driving with a 16 year old. It is believe alcohol was involved. I don't want to see the day where our society accepts the deaths of thousands of more children and people because they thought it was easier to legalize drugs period.

There is no turning back on cigarettes or alcohol. They are ingrained in our society. There is no reason to make the same mistake again.

Just curious, but if you replaced the words alcohol and drugs with the word guns and the related deaths attributed to them, would you feel the same way about legalization or making them illegal?? Or do you subscribe to the theory that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While at the same time claiming "People don't kill people, illegal drugs kill people?" Because of course those are conflicting and hypocritical views to claim at the same time.

And, its nice when I hear folks admit loud and clear that they don not believe in the idea of personal freedom and responsibility. And usually, they are the ones that are the first to point at others actions and judge their patriotism or lack thereof. If one doesn't believe in the idea of individual freedom and responsibility, at least it is refreshing when they admit it.

A person who does believe in freedom will say that that an adult, in the privacy of his/her own home should be able to do with/to his/her own body whatever they choose as long they don't endanger others lives or property. A person who DOESN'T believe in freedom, believes they have the superior knowledge and judgement that they should tell others how and what they can and can't do with thier own bodies. This is not only anit-freedom, but its arrogant, as it implies they know better what's better for you or I than we do.

And BTW, FWIW, there has never been a single CREDIBLE study, NOT ONE, that shows steroid use in adult males is dangerous. Not one. They have shown dangers to children, and to adult women, but not to adult males.

I also wonder how you would feel if suddenly drug companies were able to get the government to pass laws that said you HAD to consume such and such a drug on a daily basis. For example, if some drug company designed a drug that made every employees productivity TRIPLE while at work, I can guarantee you that within months of its inception there would be this clamor for employers to have the right to force their employees to take this drug if they wanted to keep their jobs. Guarantee it.

And having the government FORCE an adult to take a drug he/she might not want is no better/worse than having the government PREVENT an adult from taking a drug he/she might want to take. In both cases, freedom and responsibility of the individual is taken away, while the government is allowed to micromanage these individual's lives and choices. I simply can't think of anything more Un-American than that, as this sounds just like the stories we heard about in police states like North Korea, China, the former Soviet Union, and such.

Me, I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. You want to drink a gallon of coffee (a drug), smoke a pack of cigarettes (a drug), down a fifth of whiskey (a drug), pop some sort of pill (a drug), smoke a joint (a drug), or inject something (a drug), fine. You do so with the understanding that with that choice comes responsibility. Once you do so and get behind the wheel of a car, you are a criminal. If you lose your ability to maintain your self-control and judgement and do something bad, tough, you are still responsible for your actions because you knew this was a possibility when you made the choice to consume whatever drug you chose.

In fact, any crime committed while under the influence of any drug should automatically have some sort minimum number of months or years added on to the normal penalty of that crime because if you can't be responsible with the choices you make, then you do lose your right to freedom. But those who ARE responsible, should NOT lose their right to freedom because of the actions of others.

Guess our streak of agreeing with each other came to an end.

[filihok]

Guess our streak of agreeing with each other came to an end.

No, because I still agree with most of what you said. Maybe 95% was hyperbole.

In fact, any crime committed while under the influence of any drug should automatically have some sort minimum number of months or years added on to the normal penalty of that crime because if you can't be responsible with the choices you make, then you do lose your right to freedom. But those who ARE responsible, should NOT lose their right to freedom because of the actions of others.

I'm not ready to accept this ideology, but I can definately see the logic behind it.

And, its nice when I hear folks admit loud and clear that they don not believe in the idea of personal freedom and responsibility. And usually, they are the ones that are the first to point at others actions and judge their patriotism or lack thereof. If one doesn't believe in the idea of individual freedom and responsibility, at least it is refreshing when they admit it.

I hope you are not implying that I admit to this. Because I most definately do not.

I do not believe that any person is 100% responsible for their actions. I think it's pretty naive to think that a persons action only affect them. "If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less".

Nor do I believe that any one should have 100% freedom. And I bet that you don't either.

Should I be allowed to install a nuclear missle in my back yard?

Should an eleven year old girl be allowed to decide to sell her body for sex?

Should I be allowed to walk in to the White House carrying a live hand grenade?

Should my girlfriend and I be well within the law to walk into a 2nd grade social studies class room and have sex on top of a child's desk?

I would hope you would answer no to at least one of these questions.

You'll probably want to ridicule me first, and, yes, I'm using extreme examples, but these examples are all part of a continuum. You agree that we should be able to limit personal freedoms, we only disagree on where.

[HoustonGM]

Your examples are all examples of people doing things that directly endanger others, or in the 11 year old selling herself for sex example, is an example of something that should not be allowed for kids, but should be allowed for adults. I think nearly everyone in favor of drug legalization is talking specifically about legalizing drugs for adults.

The examples you're using are not examples of limiting personal freedom, where "personal freedom" is the freedom to do what you want, so long as you don't endanger others, or take away the rights of others.

Also, let's not bring in examples like the afformentioned 11 year old prostitute. With discussions like these, such examples only serve to muddy the waters, as nobody is talking about what children should and should not be allowed to do. These discussions, unless specifically identified otherwise, are always dealing with the rights of adults.

[filihok]

Your examples are all examples of people doing things that directly endanger others, or in the 11 year old selling herself for sex example, is an example of something that should not be allowed for kids, but should be allowed for adults. I think nearly everyone in favor of drug legalization is talking specifically about legalizing drugs for adults.

The examples you're using are not examples of limiting personal freedom, where "personal freedom" is the freedom to do what you want, so long as you don't endanger others, or take away the rights of others.

Also, let's not bring in examples like the afformentioned 11 year old prostitute. With discussions like these, such examples only serve to muddy the waters, as nobody is talking about what children should and should not be allowed to do. These discussions, unless specifically identified otherwise, are always dealing with the rights of adults.

This post was in response to OFG. He claims I am not for personal freedom. I claim I am for personal freedom, I just draw the line in a different place than he does.

How did any of my examples take away the rights of others?

They did endanger others (the missle and the hand grenade) but did not take away their rights. Dickay, and myself-to some extent, believe that legalizing drugs does present a danger to people other than those taking them. So these are perfectly legitimate examples.

RE children vs adults: exactly! People claim to be for personal freedom but have no problem saying who can have that personal freedom and don't see the contradiction in that.