Legalizing steroid use a good idea - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

drgoodtrips · #46 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

I was making a comparison with something I find useless, (hitting a ball) and something useful (running a computer)

Which one has more relevance and use in the modern world? And which one are we trying to argue that children should see adults wrecking their health in order to do better at??

I'll answer your question with a question. You could be here, posting on a politician discussion board, or you could be raising money for cancer awareness. Do you think the government should pass legislation so that you'll stop wasting your time and resources that all of us can use screwing around with your computer? I find posting here useless and cancer research useful. Why would you choose this over curing cancer? Do you like cancer?

drgoodtrips · #47 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

I don't mind the government discouraging unhealthy practices when it makes sense. In this case, it is not so much about professional sports as it is about the levels that lead up to that.

The problem with steroid use among professionals is that all you are doing is raising the bar for everyone. You render inferior the people who are naturally developed.

Then there is the culture of it. And it is very real. That is what seeps down into university, high school, and, believe it or not, youth sports. There is untold damage to be inflicted on our young people because of this. Any deregulation or legalization would only make it worse.

My boy has been a wrestler for years, now. He's not even 12 yet. Some parents and/or their children are so competitive - even at absurdly young ages - that they go to extremes to gain an edge. It is disgusting to see the father of an 8 year old make his kid wear a trash bag and deny them sustenance so they can drop a few pounds to wrestle a lighter opponent. I weigh my kid in at whatever he is - the greatest lengths we go to include him weighing in wearing only his underwear. That's it. Quite often, he'll be 1 or 2 pounds into the next level. He has to wrestle slightly bigger opponents than he would otherwise have to...so what. I'm sure it cost him a few pins and a few trophies, but he did not get pinned once all season, so that's plenty good for him and me.

I also coach football. I've heard of people going to extremes to get their kid to "make weight". One kid showed up (not for my team) about August 1 last year at 120 pounds...had to be 100 by the second week of September to be eligible to play (at that level). The kid was a little flabby, but not 20 pounds worth. He made it down to 98 pounds or so. I found out (through unprovable rumor) after the fact that in addition to the extreme regimen, the kid was on "water pills" like old people take. Insane.

I remember that from playing junior high football - kids weighing over some weight limit were linemen/linebackers/tight ends and kids weighing under a certain weight were backs, db's or receivers. I seem to recall kids spending a week eating a piece of lettuce per day or making themselves puke before weigh-ins. I never wrestled, but I understand similar things went on in the wrestling ranks as well.

... and these things will happen, no matter what heavy-handed laws the government tries to pass. At least, they'll happen as long as there are, say, weight distinctions for sports positions/classes. And then, it will be up to parents and their children either to go to these extremes in order to be competitive, or else to find a venue where competition can be instilled without this level of insanity.

Quote:

Without legal intervention, fierce competition would absolutely lead to kids and young men destroying themselves. There is so much at stake, even for the "casual" athlete.

If individual leagues and professional organizations want to remain credible, they have to enact testing above and beyond whatever government controls are in place. They need to take it a step further and test out of house...kick the various players' unions in the balls and demand frequent impartial testing. They need to be very clear about what is and what is not acceptable.

Seeing as few would argue against regulating the drugs we can pump into race horses, I don't see how/why anybody wouldn't want to give humans the same consideration.

Emphasis mine. I agree with this, and I think it obviates the need for the government to involve itself at all. I would rather the government do things with my tax dollars that actually have some appreciable benefit to me - crazed hockey dads living vicariously through their children and looking the other way while those children inject horse steroids isn't really my problem, sad though it is. And, unlike something such as welfare, that I don't support but could be argued to have some benefit to me (say, keeping throngs of homeless from raiding my garbage for food), this has none. I would venture to say that a child's decision to use/abuse drugs is strictly the problem of the child and his parents.

And, for the record, I don't care what people pump into race horses

Impugn · #48 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'll answer your question with a question. You could be here, posting on a politician discussion board, or you could be raising money for cancer awareness. Do you think the government should pass legislation so that you'll stop wasting your time and resources that all of us can use screwing around with your computer? I find posting here useless and cancer research useful. Why would you choose this over curing cancer? Do you like cancer?

Heh...reminds of of some movie, I think... "Dad, why does [insert pro baseball pitcher here] make millions of dollars a year but my teacher gets paid squat?" "Well, daughter of mine, I'm guessing it is because your teacher doesn't have much of a fastball."

Forget about "utility" of an action and contemplate the rarity of talent. Anybody can use a computer. Hitting a baseball, however, is widely considered the single hardest thing to do in all of sports. Rare talent is rewarded, as it should be. Plus it is fun to watch.

drgoodtrips · #49 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

Heh...reminds of of some movie, I think... "Dad, why does [insert pro baseball pitcher here] make millions of dollars a year but my teacher gets paid squat?" "Well, daughter of mine, I'm guessing it is because your teacher doesn't have much of a fastball."

Forget about "utility" of an action and contemplate the rarity of talent. Anybody can use a computer. Hitting a baseball, however, is widely considered the single hardest thing to do in all of sports. Rare talent is rewarded, as it should be. Plus it is fun to watch.

Indeed. I've never been one of those that rails about athletes being paid 'unfairly'. Most of those teams are turning a profit and putting butts in the seats and on the couches of people watching TV. It's what the market will bear. I find it curious/absurd that actors and athletes make as much as they do, but complaining about "too much" just smacks of sour grapes. If I could throw an upper 90's fastball, I'd milk it for every dime and not complain a lick

Steve · #50 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Out of curiosity, are you willing to say you'd leave the list of "banned substances" up to the league itself, but think that Joe Public should have a say in the punishment? Or are you just saying what you would do, if you were commish?

It's what I would do; or what I hope a sitting Commissionor would do.

If the leagues want to allow them, I don't necessarily have a big problem with that, either, although I think it diminishes the game...

Slon · #51 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

I was making a comparison with something I find useless, (hitting a ball) and something useful (running a computer)

Which one has more relevance and use in the modern world? And which one are we trying to argue that children should see adults wrecking their health in order to do better at??

I am not arguing that children "should see" anything. I also doubt that the doctor is trying to argue that. All I am saying is that it should be legal.

Slon · #52 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

I don't mind the government discouraging unhealthy practices when it makes sense. In this case, it is not so much about professional sports as it is about the levels that lead up to that.

The problem with steroid use among professionals is that all you are doing is raising the bar for everyone. You render inferior the people who are naturally developed.

Then there is the culture of it. And it is very real. That is what seeps down into university, high school, and, believe it or not, youth sports. There is untold damage to be inflicted on our young people because of this. Any deregulation or legalization would only make it worse.

Legalizing steroids doesn't make them allowed in sports. Sports organization, which I feel should (if they don't already) function like private organizations, will still have a say. For instance, it is legal for me to buy boxing gloves and put a lead plate in the front to increase damage when I hit a boxing bag in my house, but it is still not allowed in professional boxing events. Similarly, even though it is legal in some parts of the US to purchase a handgun without jumping through a million hoops and to use it against someone trying to harm you, it would be illegal in a boxing match.

Quote:

My boy has been a wrestler for years, now. He's not even 12 yet. Some parents and/or their children are so competitive - even at absurdly young ages - that they go to extremes to gain an edge. It is disgusting to see the father of an 8 year old make his kid wear a trash bag and deny them sustenance so they can drop a few pounds to wrestle a lighter opponent. I weigh my kid in at whatever he is - the greatest lengths we go to include him weighing in wearing only his underwear. That's it. Quite often, he'll be 1 or 2 pounds into the next level. He has to wrestle slightly bigger opponents than he would otherwise have to...so what. I'm sure it cost him a few pins and a few trophies, but he did not get pinned once all season, so that's plenty good for him and me.

This has what to do with the discussion?

Quote:

I also coach football. I've heard of people going to extremes to get their kid to "make weight". One kid showed up (not for my team) about August 1 last year at 120 pounds...had to be 100 by the second week of September to be eligible to play (at that level). The kid was a little flabby, but not 20 pounds worth. He made it down to 98 pounds or so. I found out (through unprovable rumor) after the fact that in addition to the extreme regimen, the kid was on "water pills" like old people take. Insane.

Without legal intervention, fierce competition would absolutely lead to kids and young men destroying themselves. There is so much at stake, even for the "casual" athlete.

That's their business. It's also up to the organization hosting the event, regardless of what the law says you can or cannot take (see boxing example). Stop trying to be a nanny, socializing America in the process.

Quote:

If individual leagues and professional organizations want to remain credible, they have to enact testing above and beyond whatever government controls are in place. They need to take it a step further and test out of house...kick the various players' unions in the balls and demand frequent impartial testing. They need to be very clear about what is and what is not acceptable.

And it would still be up to the private organizations. Once again, the law would have little to do with it. Contract violation (in this case, an agreement to not use steroids) would still be illegal even if steroids are made totally legal.

Quote:

Seeing as few would argue against regulating the drugs we can pump into race horses, I don't see how/why anybody wouldn't want to give humans the same consideration.

Slon · #53 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

How on Earth can you see any sort of advantage to sports being dominated by physically and psychologically damaged steroid junkies?

That's not what it's about, and it appears as though you are incapable of comprehending liberty, but rather only the difference between socialism and authoritarianism of one kind and that of another (one of which you support).

Quote:

How is it "WAAAAAA!!!" to assert that it is ridiculous to place at a disadvantage athletes who would choose to not become steroid junkies?

Because the way in which you try to do it is authoritarian and big government-esque.

Quote:

How ignorant of reality does somebody have to be to know the progression would be from a few people abusing steroids to get an edge to a culture requiring steroid abuse just to achieve mediocrity?

It would depend on the organizations' decisions. Right now, we have different combat sports (such as PRIDE and professional boxing). Both allow almost totally different sets of rules. While one allows only punching, the other allows wrestling and kicking (among other things). It's apparently legal to allow either one, yet we don't see boxing organizations "taking it up a notch" and allowing kicking (as you assume will happen to steroids if legalized).

Quote:

I'd almost be willing to buy the concept of separate "anything goes" leagues. Let 'em do crystal meth on the sidelines...do lines off a cheerleader's ass...shrink their nuts to raisins and take obscene amounts of steroids. That, unto itself, is fine with me. However, the probability of adversely affecting lower tier sports and damaging our youth negates whatever benefit you might imagine from such a league.

Why so controlling? People might think you're the next coming of Lenin.

Quote:

On top of everything else, as is usual, any from the left in favor of this legalization are also in favor of not forcing the abusers to actually suffer the consequences. If the Leftists' Dream Health Care System emerges...why the fuck should I have to pay for those morons' bad choices? Why should any money/resources go to these people and/or their families when they willingly hurt themselves? Why were we expected to give a flying fuck about Lyle Alzedo - how did this dude become some sort of martyr? Oh, because he was trapped in a culture of steroid use - abuse it or, your job, lose it. Yeah, that's a plan.

It's hilarious to watch you bash "the left" for being socialist right after you finish your tirade about how you want to "protect the children" using big government.

Impugn · #54 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

It's hilarious to watch you bash "the left" for being socialist right after you finish your tirade about how you want to "protect the children" using big government.

Like I said, I've seen first hand what parents will do to give their children an edge. It only gets worse as they get older and the stakes increase.

Given that dynamic, call it whatever the fuck you want, but I do not see any advantage to allowing performance enhancing drugs into the equation.

If you could tell me that only this pro league and that pro sport were allowing them, fine. But what you refuse to recognize is that if you set the "top bar" to that represented by artificially enhanced athletes, the various lower tiers leading up to that - yes, right down to the 3rd Graders - will be affected by that culture.

I'm for liberating all sorts of shit because I think that, left to their own devices, the population, as a whole, will make inferior choices to those made by me, my family, and my children. So, any differentiating influence can only serve to make my existence better. Go ahead. Legalize smack. Hopefully the guy down the hall from me in the corner office gives it a try and I benefit.

This particular issue, however, is exactly what I said it is. Call me names all day. I'm comfortable with my position on this.

Off the hook libertarianism is fun to talk about but about as practical and dangerous as an ejector seat in a helicopter.

Slon · #55 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

Like I said, I've seen first hand what parents will do to give their children an edge. It only gets worse as they get older and the stakes increase.

The question is why you feel it's your business to force them in one way or another.

Quote:

Given that dynamic, call it whatever the fuck you want, but I do not see any advantage to allowing performance enhancing drugs into the equation.

It's called liberty, but I can understand how a big government socialist such as your would not see that as an advantage.

Quote:

If you could tell me that only this pro league and that pro sport were allowing them, fine. But what you refuse to recognize is that if you set the "top bar" to that represented by artificially enhanced athletes, the various lower tiers leading up to that - yes, right down to the 3rd Graders - will be affected by that culture.

Once again, the government does not set the top bar for everyone, but simply at the organizational level. Just like boxing organizations disallow some things that are legal.

Quote:

I'm for liberating all sorts of shit because I think that, left to their own devices, the population, as a whole, will make inferior choices to those made by me, my family, and my children. So, any differentiating influence can only serve to make my existence better. Go ahead. Legalize smack. Hopefully the guy down the hall from me in the corner office gives it a try and I benefit.

This particular issue, however, is exactly what I said it is. Call me names all day. I'm comfortable with my position on this.

Off the hook libertarianism is fun to talk about but about as practical and dangerous as an ejector seat in a helicopter.

Point is that small government is just a mask that people like you (neocons) use to make yourself more popular. In reality, you support big government just like a liberal or "the left" does. It's just that you support things that you think are beneficial to you, and liberals support things that are beneficial to them. Liberty never enters the equation.

Impugn · #56 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

The question is why you feel it's your business to force them in one way or another.It's called liberty, but I can understand how a big government socialist such as your would not see that as an advantage.Once again, the government does not set the top bar for everyone, but simply at the organizational level. Just like boxing organizations disallow some things that are legal.
Point is that small government is just a mask that people like you (neocons) use to make yourself more popular. In reality, you support big government just like a liberal or "the left" does. It's just that you support things that you think are beneficial to you, and liberals support things that are beneficial to them. Liberty never enters the equation.

Like I said, call me any names you like. This is simply one of those cases of "Nope, you don't have the freedom to do that, and here's why."

The "why" of it has been explained by me very well. You think the pressures of pro athletics is bad...pfffft. What means more to whom...a few million dollars to a millionaire or a full paid athletic scholarship to kid from a destitute family? Where will people be more likely to make flat-out dangerous decisions?

Meh...you can have fun with the "what if" fantasies. Neat to speculate. I'll enjoy the reality that curbs freedom in exchange for not promoting a culture of tweeners tweaking on 'roids.

I don't see you addressing, as usual, who's going to get stuck with the tab when the 99.999% that never make a living at sports crash and burn.

Slon · #57 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

Like I said, call me any names you like. This is simply one of those cases of "Nope, you don't have the freedom to do that, and here's why."

Right, because you want to socially engineer people to not compete above a certain level, even though it is none of your business. Welfare supports want to force people to be nice through the government. Would you support welfare if that were the reason given?

Quote:

The "why" of it has been explained by me very well. You think the pressures of pro athletics is bad...pfffft.

I don't care about the pressures of pro athletes. It's none of my business what they pump into themselves (assuming it does not violate private contracts) just as it is none of my business that people slowly kill themselves with fast food, alcohol and cigarettes.

Quote:

What means more to whom...a few million dollars to a millionaire or a full paid athletic scholarship to kid from a destitute family? Where will people be more likely to make flat-out dangerous decisions?

I guess you better start support welfare, too.

Quote:

Meh...you can have fun with the "what if" fantasies. Neat to speculate.

I'm basing my statements on history and well-known fact. My boxing examples actually did happen (and do happen).

Quote:

I'll enjoy the reality that curbs freedom in exchange for not promoting a culture of tweeners tweaking on 'roids.

Of course. We know you are hostile towards liberty if it suits your lifestyle.

Quote:

I don't see you addressing, as usual, who's going to get stuck with the tab when the 99.999% that never make a living at sports crash and burn.

Nobody. I am against welfare.

Impugn · #58 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Right, because you want to socially engineer people to not compete above a certain level, even though it is none of your business. Welfare supports want to force people to be nice through the government. Would you support welfare if that were the reason given?I don't care about the pressures of pro athletes. It's none of my business what they pump into themselves (assuming it does not violate private contracts) just as it is none of my business that people slowly kill themselves with fast food, alcohol and cigarettes.I guess you better start support welfare, too.

I'm basing my statements on history and well-known fact. My boxing examples actually did happen (and do happen).Of course. We know you are hostile towards liberty if it suits your lifestyle.
Nobody. I am against welfare.

For once, Jonah Goldberg didn't quote the Simpsons. As he put it in the article Freedom Kills - John Walker, Andrew Sullivan, and the libertarian threat.:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review

You don't turn children into responsible adults by giving them absolute freedom. You foster good character by limiting freedom, and by channeling energies into the most productive avenues. That's what all good schools, good families, and good societies do. The Boy Scouts don't throw a pocketknife to a kid and say, "Knock yourself out, kid. I'll be back in a couple hours." The cultural libertarians want to do precisely that.

You give the crazy ass parents I've seen in action over 6 years of coaching four sports the "freedom" to destroy their kids in the name of "succeeding", they'll do it.

Yeah, the Big Neocon Conspiracy to keep the kids off 'roids. Next we come for your birth control pills, bongs, and pointy objects of any sort!

drgoodtrips · #59 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

It's what I would do; or what I hope a sitting Commissionor would do.

If the leagues want to allow them, I don't necessarily have a big problem with that, either, although I think it diminishes the game...<