Steroids

[HoustonGM]

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

Never said they did.

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.

An adult taking a drug does not present a danger to anybody but himself, and it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove otherwise.

Yes, people under the influence of drugs may be at a higher risk of endangering others than people not under the influence of drugs, but the same goes for many, many, many legal things. If someone under the influence of drugs harms somebody else, THAT action should be illegal, but not the simple action of taking the drug. I'd be in favor of HARSHER penalties for harming others while under the influence of drugs, as opposed to harming others while sober, because when you take a drug, as OFG said, you know (or should know) the dangers and possibilities it comes with, and you take responsibility for your actions while under the influence of it.

Taking a drug, in and of itself, is not at all like any example you mentioned.

[HoustonGM]

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.

There is no contradiction in being for personal freedom for adults, and limiting "personal freedom" for children, and if you fail to understand the fundamental difference between an adult and a child, than, oh well. But, there's a difference, and adults and children need to be subject to different rules and laws.

[filihok]

An adult taking a drug does not present a danger to anybody but himself, and it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove otherwise

That is quite a statement to make.

Yes, people under the influence of drugs may be at a higher risk of endangering others than people not under the influence of drugs, but the same goes for many, many, many legal things.

doesn't "endager" mean present a danger, really?

Taking a drug, in and of itself, is not at all like any example you mentioned.

I think it is just like my examples. If

people under the influence of drugs may be at a higher risk of endangering others

and my nuclear missle in my back yard is a danger to others, how is it different?

[filihok]

There is no contradiction in being for personal freedom for adults, and limiting "personal freedom" for children, and if you fail to understand the fundamental difference between an adult and a child, than, oh well. But, there's a difference, and adults and children need to be subject to different rules and laws.

Where is the cut off point between child and adult? I agree children are different than adults, but where is the POINT where that changes? There's not one. So, there is an arbitrary line drawn where you and OFG want to say we can limit these people's freedom but not these people's. And that is limiting personal freedom just the same as my belief that these activities should be limited, but not these.

[HoustonGM]

That is quite a statement to make.

Give me one example of an adult taking a drug and harming anybody but himself.

Note, ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE ARE ANOTHER STORY.

Consuming a drug, in and of itself, has the potential to harm ONLY the person taking the drug.

doesn't "endager" mean present a danger, really?

You know what I mean.

I think it is just like my examples. If and my nuclear missle in my back yard is a danger to others, how is it different?

Why don't you tell me how a nuclear missile in your backyard is different than Johnny Pothead smoking a joint?

Where is the cut off point between child and adult? I agree children are different than adults, but where is the POINT where that changes? There's not one.

You're right. There is no real definitive age that a child is no longer a child. Really, it's different for every individual and depends on a lot of factors.

So, there is an arbitrary line drawn where you and OFG want to say we can limit these people's freedom but not these people's. And that is limiting personal freedom just the same as my belief that these activities should be limited, but not these.

It's different. Children and adults are different, and they must be subject to different rules and laws. Yes, what defines an adult is arbitrary, but that's the price we pay in order to make sure children are dealt with differently than adults.

[HoustonGM]

Ridiculous hyberboles only serve to muddy the waters, as well, and distract from the real issue.

[dickay]

It is so depressing that some people think this way. Sorry...but I think it is universally naive to believe legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc. only for the adult only effects the individual using or selling themself.

I'm watching a child at the moment however, making sure he doesn't get into my alcohol cabinet or friends cigarette carton. Availability is a b!tch.

More on this tonight

[dickay]

It's different. Children and adults are different, and they must be subject to different rules and laws. Yes, what defines an adult is arbitrary, but that's the price we pay in order to make sure children are dealt with differently than adults.

Before I go...again, tell me its merely a coincidence that youth use of steriods escalating in America has nothing to do with the use of steroids in professional sports and its acceptance in the body building community. Naive.

[HoustonGM]

A lot of the "effect" illegal drugs and prostitution has on others besides those participating comes directly from the fact that they are illegal.

[HoustonGM]

Before I go...again, tell me its merely a coincidence that youth use of steriods escalating in America has nothing to do with the use of steroids in professional sports and its acceptance in the body building community. Naive.

Steroid use has been escalating IN EVERY PART OF SOCIETY.

Professional sports have seen an increase....because its increased in society.
Young people have seen an increase...because its increased in society.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[filihok]

Ridiculous hyberboles only serve to muddy the waters, as well, and distract from the real issue.

The REAL ISSUE is that all these issues lie on a continuum. We all treat these issues like there is right and wrong but all of our rights and wrongs only depend on what arbitrary line we've drawn. And you can call my examples ridiculous and distracting all you want since you refuse to accept them.

Give me one example of an adult taking a drug and harming anybody but himself.

Note, ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE ARE ANOTHER STORY

Consuming a drug, in and of itself, has the potential to harm ONLY the person taking the drug.

1) the harm isn't always so black and white as "Tarzan take drug. Jane get sick".

2) if taking the drug leads to an increase in the probability of a harmful action perhaps that is reason enough to prevent people from taking the drug.

You know what I mean.

I do know what you mean. See above.

You're right. There is no real definitive age that a child is no longer a child. Really, it's different for every individual and depends on a lot of factors.

Yep. So what should we do devise some magical test to determine who is of "mental age" to smoke weed, drink, have sex, sign a contract, drive, etc? No. We're going to say, that for the sake of society we think it is pertinant to take away everyone's freedom's until they are 18 (or 16, or 21, depending). Following that same logic, some of us feel it is pertinant to take away personal freedoms regarding specific issues, regardless of age. And that is no more hypocritial or unpatriotic or like a police state than any of the arbitrary lines drawn by age or mental ability or other factors.

[dickay]

Steroid use has been escalating IN EVERY PART OF SOCIETY.

Professional sports have seen an increase....because its increased in society.
Young people have seen an increase...because its increased in society.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Absolutely it does. Cmon, where do you think the youth get it from?!?! Because its become more 'accepted' in the world of muscle building and has gotten safer for adult use, it is now finding its way into kids hands. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. Same with Alcohol and Cigarettes. There is a reason why it is criminal to buy booze for a minor, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO IT!! I worked at a convenient store at 17 and have access to booze. Kids today are no different. Access and acceptance equals additional usage by kids.

Thats elementary now....stop looking through blinders and at least admit that much.

[HoustonGM]

2) if taking the drug leads to an increase in the probability of a harmful action perhaps that is reason enough to prevent people from taking the drug.

Than let's ban parents from punishing their children by taking away something they like to do, since that increases the probability of the child taking a harmful action.

And let's ban drinking alcohol. And salvia. And Robotussin.

And let's ban going into mosh pits.

And while we're at it, let's ban getting angry.

[HoustonGM]

Absolutely it does. Cmon, where do you think the youth get it from?!?! Because its become more 'accepted' in the world of muscle building and has gotten safer for adult use, it is now finding its way into kids hands. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. Same with Alcohol and Cigarettes. There is a reason why it is criminal to buy booze for a minor, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO IT!! I worked at a convenient store at 17 and have access to booze. Kids today are no different. Access and acceptance equals additional usage by kids.

Thats elementary now....stop looking through blinders and at least admit that much.

That has nothing at all to do with the notion that because it's risen in professional sports, kids using it has risen as well.

What you said in this post is exactly what I said. More kids are using it because it's more prevelent in society, PERIOD, not just professional sports.

[filihok]

Than let's ban parents from punishing their children by taking away something they like to do, since that increases the probability of the child taking a harmful action.

And let's ban drinking alcohol. And salvia. And Robotussin.

And let's ban going into mosh pits.

And while we're at it, let's ban getting angry.

That argument is equally as logical as not banning anything.

We agree somethings should be banned, some should not. We just disagree about the lines.