This thread is continuing to suck. Thank you all for your participation and knowledge of steroids and other things discussed herein.

Umm, no. I said AT LEAST pick up a newspaper. Most people don't have access to scientific journals. I would say at least pick up JAMA, but I doubt Elessar or you have access to even JAMA, so why even bother mentioning it?

So START with shit like the newspaper, magazines, etc, and if you want to know more, delve deeper.



Ok, Elessar, let's put you to the test then. NAME ONE. Remember, in a normal, healthy individual, name a single reason why a physician would prescribe steroids.



You're on the wrong slope buddy. The slope I was referring to was "if taken in proper moderation with doctor supervision, what's wrong with it?" The doctor supervision part. Well, if that's the case, then why not just take crystal meth, in moderation, under a doctor's supervision? You seem to have glossed over the examples I provided. Read them again and see I wasn't arguing what you can or cannot put into your body, I was arguing your point that you seem to think that as long as a doctor's supervising it, then it's OK, and if that's the case, why not just a doctor supervising all chemicals making it OK, like crystal meth, coke, heroin, etc. That's the slope.




Givin, I only quote this single line, but let's just say your entire post prior has no revelance, because it's apples and oranges. Here's your lesson on medicine for today, after which you can return to your forte - video games.

It's not just the drug or chemical. There is a vast difference between INGESTING steroids and INJECTING steroids for starters. Let's examine another chemical shall we? Calcium. Did you know if you injected calcium into your veins, you can stop your heart and die? Now Givin, does that mean drinking milk is going to kill you? Follow me so far?

There are a lot of defense mechanisms placed in your body for a reason. Your stomach is acidic for a reason, and it's not to just give you indigestion. It's protective in the sense it kills a lot of shit. You can, for example, eat E. Coli (a bacteria found in a lot of places, but also in tainted food), and nothing would happen to you in small doses. You inject it into your veins? Major bacteremia and illness. You know where there's a lot of E. Coli? Shit. You ever eat shit? Guess what, you probably have, because meat products are often contaminated with feces, albeit a small amount. So why don't you get sick? Again, because you ate it, and your stomach acids took care of it. Now, inject that same small amount of shit into your bloodstream, and whamo! major illness.

So without going into a whole discussion about differences between steroids, let's just say that your meat steroid example is off the mark. See above. Your car wreck example? Did you not comprehend the part where I talk about no medical indication for steroids in normal, healthy individuals? Guess what also - the reason they give steroids to spine victims is to decrease inflammation and swelling so there is less spinal cord compression. It seems like you might have known that part. The part you don't seem to know is how long you give it for, and also, why it's a risk long term because steroids increase your risk for infection. Again, ZERO relevance with regards to steroid use in healthy atheletes, but thx for your contribution!

So go hunt down the rabbit hole with Elessar, and come back and give me A SINGLE medically indicated use for steroids in a normal, healthy individual.

My argument is not based on media hype. The only reason I bring up the media is that for people such as yourself and Elessar, it's what you have access to, and if you even bothered to look at it with an open eye, then you could delve deeper. Hype is when the media says one thing, but the source says another. This is not that case. If you could/would review the scientific journals regarding steroid use, then you would see why steroids are supposed to be judiciously prescribed only when indicated. Do you have even fucking clue #1 about the harmful effects of even a steroid like cortisone are? This isn't aspirin we're talking about.

And no, I'm not going to bring the DoctorX pain, as long as you stop bringing the Menen stupidity.

George W Bush doesn't care about Steroids

_________________

How about to enhance physical performance and to grow muscle? What if the adult taking the steroid is aware of the risk. Why would your moral compass take precent over his with how much risk is acceptable?

_________________

Michael Vick finds Jesus.

Bwhaha.

_________________

I can't see that link at work, but I need to make a correction. Michael Vick found Jesus, "for the time being".

Here's what it says then, just for you (and 'cause it's funny as hell)

_________________

Not in the long term best interest my ass. The media already starting saying 2-3 days ago that the reason the Falcons can't (not won't, can't) cut him is because they want 22 Million Dollars in bonus money they gave him for his 10 year contact back but the only way they can get the money back is if he stays on the team.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?t=262095

_________________

Wouldn't qualify as being "in the best interest of the team"?

It's the way they worded that statement really....they should've said "We are pursuing other actions in relations to his contact, which make us unable to cut him from the team at the present time". Then at least they'd be saying they aren't cutting him AND backing up the facts as they why they can't cut him.

_________________

Yeah. They make it sound like "we're keeping him because he's a good player, despite the fact that he's a dog strangler". Without Khameir posting that it's due to bonuses from the contract (which totally makes sense)...I'd have no fucking idea. That at least makes some sense.

Could have been worded much better. And perhaps it was, they might have only included part of the statement...I dunno. I still think this 'finding Jesus' shit is hysterical. It's about as funny as when Paris Hilton was walking around with that bible.

_________________

This has nothing to do with the legal system. It has to do with medicines that need to be prescribed by doctors. There is a reason I used steroids vs aspirin as an example, and it isn't because aspirin is safe, because aspiring certainly has it's side effects.

It's because one is a prescription drug, and one is over-the-counter. So ask yourself why that is. Could it possibly be because one has more potential for complications, side effects, and abuse than the other?

Cortisone is prescribed regularly. By doctors. When you can go into Rite-Aid and buy yourself a cortisone injection, then you might have a point. As it stands now you don't.



Get off of the same stupid slope that Elessar is on, PLEASE. Did you not read what I've written twice already, or is it you have difficulty reading? Seriously? I already said it has NOTHING to do with what you do and don't want to put into your body. It has to do with stating it's OK as long as a doctor is supervising it. The slippery slope is if that's OK, then it should be OK with other drugs, like heroin, marijuana, crystal meth, etc. Do you get it now? Do you see how your Krispy Kreme example has no relevance? Here's a clue - you don't need a doctor to prescribe fucking donuts. Get off the "I can do whatever I want with my body" slope because that's not the one I'm talking about. I'm talking about the "it's OK to use this drug as long as a doctor is supervising it" slope. Do you get it now?



How about diet and exercise? How about a exercise regimen? Steroids have documented side effects, so always the risk/benefits of such drugs need to be assessed. I mean, according to you, why not just prescribe cocaine because it enchances mental alertness? "Hi Dr. Annastazia, can u inject me with some cocaine because I have a big exam coming up? Thanks!"

Building muscle is NOT a medical indication for steroid use. Find me a single doctor whose office you can go into, say "Hi doctor, I wish to build muscle, what do you recommend?", and instead of them telling you to exercise or lift weights they write you a prescription for steroids.....and I'll show you a doctor whose going to be brought in front of the medical board and have their license revieewed, and hopefully suspended or revoked.

Drivers may well be the human component, but that doesn't make it a flawed comparison or analogy. What they are trying to do in Nascar is keep the competing component of play to be fair on all sides by limiting how much modification you can put on the competing component. In the case of Nascar, the car is a critical component(and the driver as another critical component) of competition and thus it is necessary to regulate. In the case of football/baseball, your body is the main critical component of competition, and when you change that by artificial means it is no longer a fair competition because you have changed the very nature of the competition, much the same as changing the very nature of the competition in nascar by making the car fly.

Really? I think you and I are completely different pages, but none of that requires the level of vitriol (well, unwarranted smartassery) in your replies, chief, nor did I ever question your qualifications (goes as well as the person you're directly responding to). The only reason I suggest doctor's supervision is to maintain dosage quality (and quantity to some small degree, risk a given). It's the same reason I believe in the LEGAL use of drugs. For example, I'd like to be sure my marijuana or Ecstasy is quality product and not Mexican street-level dogshit.

And my one reason for a person in excellent health to take them? Because they want to. If a person wants to jump out of an aircraft, we should probably teach them how to do so to mitigate risk as much as possible. Go to skydiving school. Enjoy your jump as safely as possible.

You could have really had a point if you didn't attempt to be Thug Doctor.

All you're doing is telling people it's bad for them when they 100% rely on them, and reminding everyone every other sentence it's illegal while trying to wave around some air of superiority because you can write some dude a prescription for cream because he has a boil on his asshole.

We know. My 60 thousand dollar "video game" college debt education doesn't need your 250 thousand glorified nursing school one to tell me that.

I don't really care about your personal medical code of ethics. What he asked was what would be wrong with it if it were allowed under proper condition and supervision. The answer is nothing. The side effect would be education, refinment and awareness. An increase in performance is a perfect reason one would take it. The responsibility is in the user. It's not like cocaine or heroine. It's an enhancement drug. The fact you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

The risk if used responsibly is low. The real issue with them is the simple fact that those that get them accelerate the dosage they intake, and do not regulate how it enters the bloodstream.

Your aspirin analogy is elementary also. Every drug, EVERY DRUG has a side effect. Over the counter or not. You even said it yourself. Some require medical supervision. An anabolic steroid could be no different. This is a drug that could be refined and potentially made safer, but due to stupid stigma, thanks in part mostly by the media especially as of late, will probably never come into being. It's nothing like pot, heroine or coke other than the fact it's a controlled substance. It isn't addictive, unless you consider unregulated and accelerated injection, consumption or application to achieved results faster an addiction. Which is a side effect everyone here recognizes and aren't even disputing.

Every bit you have written assumes than anyone that would be interested in what taking them could provide is nothing more than some juicer that is going to run down behind the local family doctors officer and bring home a duffle bag of needles and start jacking up. You know as well as anyone here that isn't the case at all and the examples any of us disagree with you on do not cite a use of the drug in that way. The total opposite. I don't care if you think me lowly because im discussing something without a plaque on the wall that says I can call myself Doogie Howser. I don't need one to discuss a topic that only requires common sense and an ability to do a little research.

Man and all this time I've been thinking that we weren't allowed to do whatever we want to ourselves

in a civilized culture like ours.

I mean self mutilization, laying out naked in the middle of park avenue,

injecting myself with gamma raidation to turn into a superhuman green

monster. Why stop there

Or then again, people with high morals, and ethics, plus a little bit of common sense

are out there to save us from ourselves.

You could use that exact same argument, without modification really, for using meth. to stay awake, or for weight loss. The reality is with meth. that the problems with it far outweigh the purported (and documented) 'benefits'.

The same is true with steroid use.

Additionally in our society we DO allow medical procedures for nothing more than vanity. Breast augmentation is a surgical procedure. All surgical procedures carry risks, including risk of death. The sole benefit is bigger tits, hardly a necessity by even the broadest (pun intended) definition. But we allow it with informed consent. If the patient deems the risks worthy of their personal benefit...they may do so.

That's an argument I think one could make for steroid use, that it's no different than other forms of medical augmentation. It has it's risks and side effects, but with medical supervision and informed consent...it could be possible.

Except even then you'd be looking only at extremely short term use, and pretty minimal benefits. The dangers of long term use are so high that they're simply not worth the risks for what is ultimately vanity (or 'performance enhancement'). Just as we have 'acceptable risk' surgeries and drugs for obesity (though many of those are debatable, they are legal)..but phen-fen is now illegal...even though it worked really well. The death rate from pulmonary embolism, coupled with valve problems simply was too high risk.

But I think you guys more than understand risk v. benefit, etc.

_________________

I want to clarify here, at least my point of view-- I don't care if you inject steroids into your body. I think it should be legal, just as I push for legalization of many other drugs and activities that I think should be left to personal choice (assisted suicide, prostitution, polygamy, gay marriage, etc.). We're in complete agreement here if that is your general philosophical reason for allowing steroids.

However if I were running the NFL and steroids were legal in the US to use, as the head of my private enterprise I would still ban steroids for players in my organization. Want to use? Feel free, but you can't play in my league. Why? Because there's a line out there that I don't want to cross. That line is in slightly different places for different people, but for me steroids are on the wrong side of that line. I want to see players break amazing records in sports on their own. I want to feel like there doesn't need to be an asterisk next to their names. I want to know that they got on their own hard work and training, not because of the artificial (to me) boost they get due to these kinds of drugs. To me, "working out" and "eating right" are not on the same side of that line. I want to see a game where I don't feel like the scales are tipped toward those willing to take these drugs in order to gain an edge. Some of you do want to see this, and that's fine with me-- it's just not what I want to see. It's over that line, for me.

Now as the leader of this private enterprise, I should have that right to make that decision. As the leader of this hypothetical private enterprise, this is the football I want to watch. And, as the leader of this hypothetical private enterprise, I would not want my organization to be overtly or covertly endorsing the use of these dangerous substances to win a game. I would not want my implied message to be, "you must take these drugs to be successful in my organization." I already see it in my high school, where students all over are talking about how they "have to drink these protein shakes / eat these caffine pills or I can't compete!" It's a ridiculous notion (and certainly not in the same league as steroids- please don't think I'm comparing the two), and I can only guess that this new drive by the students I see is a result of the slowly creeping cultural idea that we must have supplements in addition to good diet and exercise in order to succeed in sports.

So there you go-- I agree! Legalize steroids. But ban it in sports. That's my stance.

Self-mutilation. Lying naked in Park Ave. It harms yourself and society how again? You confuse ethics and high morals with a nanny state. Morals are relative and extremely subjective. People in a civilized culture don't need saving from themselves, they need saving from those would impose THEIR narrow view on them. If it does not harm you, it's not your concern.

If your argument = drain on society via healthcare costs? They shouldn't receive the care, nor should society be providing it. But that's a different argument altogether.

Thank you. more or less what I wanted to say.



I agree pretty much with what Fribur said also.

To add on that, I believe it goes beyond, or could go beyond the world of sports. There are applications where if they were offered as a means to achieve enhanced physical performance, it could be helpful. It goes well beyond the typical "LOL U jus want 2 b TEH HULK HOGANZ or TEH INCREDUBUL HULKZ" horseshit.



So go ahead and cut. Cut as deep as you want. Nothing stopping you other than the balls to pick up the scalpel and go to town. Go lay out naked if you want. If you can find some uranium feel free to embrace onto it as much as you like till your DNA reconfigures itself to morph you into the chewing gum you were laying on in the street.

Your choice. The cause and effect of all of those situations are easily researchable to you.

Meanwhile, everyone else will continue to discuss steroid use and how it could possibly actually benifit people under certain circumstances and situations. Or just retorting with "NO! People wearing labcoats that went to school for 80 years say it's bad for you because if you do too much too quickly, we think that your penis will shrink!"

If you get worked up about steroids, i'd love to sit down and watch a vein explode if we were to discuss cloning, genetic engineering or any other type of mental masturbation that you consider nothing but horseshit out of Star Trek.

You'd be wrong. But I'm sure you used to it by now, herr doktor.

Is this seriously coming from you Givin? Someone who's been "thugging" it up on the Lanys boards for years? What's the matter, you like thugging it against people like Cicely because he doesn't talk back, but when someone like me does you want to point out how it doesn't make me look good? Is that part of your Hypocritic Oath?



Let me start off by saying I respect you a lot Givin, especially when it comes to your advice on video games. I often find you to be spot on. You often seem to be confrontational yourself, to the point that I think many on this board don't want to argue with you. So imagine my suprise when you decide to play the Pussy Card about "wah wah wah poor me vs glorified you". Did I bring up the doctor crap? No, you did. Did I come out saying what I did, and therefore my opinion matters more? Have I even mentioned in this thread what my background is? No. Because it doesn't matter if I'm a doctor, video game designer, or plumber, I'm rendering an opinion, not a point of fact. My point stands, and falls, on it's own merits. Same with yours.

You know what? I didn't know what you did for a living, or what school you went to etc. Doesn't matter, you still sounded like you knew what you were talking about when it came to video games. You could have been a doctor, video game designer, plumber.....you still knew your stuff. Now if you wanted to come off as an authority, then yes, I hope you would have something to back it up. With video games, you seemed like you knew what you were talking about.

Here? Not so much. Not only do you sound like someone who doesn't know anything about the dangers of steroid use, but you sound like a small child. We get it. Waah waah waah, I want to be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Waah waah waah. Sounds like a small child stuck in Id cycle still sucking on your mother's tit if you ask me, but whatever. Once you decide to join reality and leave Fantasy Island, then maybe you can see that at least here in the United States, that isn't the case, no matter how much you want it to be so. It's hard for anyone to have a discussion with someone who just wants whatever the fuck they want, even though laws prevent that.

Case in point is this gem:



Cocaine not an enhancement drug? Are you kidding me? Did you know (well obviously you didn't but here it goes) that cocaine used to be prescribed regularly for a variety of ailments and symptoms? That the foremost surgeon of his era, Dr. Halstead, the Father of American Surgery, was a raging cocaine addict because he felt, as many doctors did of his time, that it helped enhance his mental and surgical abilities?

Heroin? Do you realize heroin was used as a cough medicine for children in the early 20th century? That is was developed as an alternative to morphine, by the same guys who brought you Bayer aspirin?

So if anything, steroids are EXACTLY like cocaine and heroin, except in a different era.



They said the same things about cocaine and heroin around 100 years ago.



Sure, if it's safer, then it's a whole different argument. The point is steroids in their present form have serious side effects. This could go down the whole line of discussion of what if they develop a pill that could make you taller? No side effects? Do we give it to everyone? What if it causes cancer? Who regulates it then?

But you are arguing my point, because at some level you understand steroids are dangerous, otherwise why the need to make them safer? Elessar is saying its OK as long as a doctor's supervising it, whereas I'm saying in a normal healthy individual, there is no medical indication for steroid use. You may say "I can take steroids if I want", but the reality is you are only going to get it if a doctor prescribes it for you, and the only doctors that are going to are either 1) unethical, 2) doing it for the money or 3) both.



Trust me, if Elessar subscribed to JAMA he wouldn't be here stating, and I quote, "what's wrong with steroids". But thanks for chiming in, your insight has proven invaluable yet again.

Insight is unnecessary to tell that you are, have been, and will always be a reactionary douche with vast insecurities, doc.

You are not 16 presumably, so your experience is irrelevant. Not every parent is responsible, particularly when they are looking at a meal-ticket.



Which merely argues that those teens with some small talent and athletes with mediocre talent will feel even greater pressure to abuse them.



Not really. If you extend his expected numbers he maybe gets over 500. The difference people see is the surge in his later years which made him go from "possible" HofF and $$ to "lock" and $$$$$.

Rather attractive to young players.

--J.D.

That pretty much sums up my position on it as well.

I don't see why people feel the need to take their "legalize" stance to the extreme of saying it should be allowed by major sports too.

Purely for entertainment purposes. It's like this -- you know how when you watch an auto race some part of you is always hoping, waiting, for a crash? There's really nothing more exciting than flaming hulks of steel and plastic kareening off each other at 200 mph.

Well, the same goes for football! Everybody likes seeing hard hits, right? The ones that make you wince when you watch them over and over on the highlights reels? And when a QB gets their ACL torn by the full force of a lineman landing on their knee, can you honestly look away?

So I say take off the restrictor plates and let 'em go fast, because that'll only increase the number of awesome crashes. And by the same token, let the athletes who aren't already juicing get with the program. I want to see running backs' knees exploding under the sheer power of their quads. I want to see linemen ripping each others arms off and swatting each other with them. I think a little carnage is exactly what's needed to revitalize the NFL.

And really, allowing free use of steroids is the only way to level the playing field. We've seen time and again that banning performance-enhancers doesn't work -- the smart, resourceful few (or those rich enough to employ someone smart and resourceful) are always finding new ways to juice. The honest, law abiding athletes are left behind. So in the spirit of fair play, there's really no option but to let everyone juice to their heart's content!

As for the health risks... well, pro athletes, especially in contact sports like football, already take enormous long-term health risks through exposure to injury. Most ex-NFLers are lucky if they can walk past 60. But obviously pro athletes feel the money and glory make those risks worth taking. So really, the steroids issue is just an extension of a tradeoff that already exists. Allowing 'roids just escalates the risks. Maybe athletes would need their incentives increased proportionately to keep the rewards outweighing the risks, but surely increased revenues from the awesomeness of superhuman athletes will cover salary hikes.

Thank you for proving my previous point about this thread, Noojen.

Very very well said! People like Nek treat people like dogs that are incapable of making accurate risk assesments for their own health decisions. Nek, may I suggest you stop with the conjecture and hyperbole and start using that brain power (because I know you are a very smart dude) and provide statistical analysis that demonstrates the points you are trying to make? Otherwise you are just blowing a ton of hot air over a person's right to make their own choices.

_________________

Or someone who wants to avoid a control cabal. This is quite possibly the most arrogant statement I've seen on this board. And coming from me that's a bold statement.



Then they'll learn personal responsibility. The inability to parent or make proper choices (and I AM a parent myself) is irrelevant to the discussion.



You'd be wrong. As a matter of fact, I manage a VERY significant number of IDN's. It's my business to know the industry, especially as we expand the Rx market. I also read the APA circulars as well. Because I disagree, do not assume I'm uninitiated.

Shh, Elessar, clearly we're uninformed if we dare challenge his infinite wisdom...

Actually it's not me, it's the government. Otherwise, why even need an agency like the FDA? And why are you arguing this point yet again, when I've said time and time again that is not the issue. For the third time, I don't care what you put into your body. Did you know I support the legalization of marijuana?

Go back to my very first post, and see the issue I have is Elessar's statement of:



Seriously, am I the only one maybe outside of Draconi that sees the problem with that statement? What's wrong with steroids? Seriously? Supposedly from someone who's informed and reads JAMA? Never mind the fact that is has nothing to do with what you are preaching Annastazia. You see the second part? "with doctor supervision"? What does that have to do with a person making their own health care decisions? It's a person making it with a doctor....and for the third time, that I think is dangerous, because you are saying it's OK, as long as a doctor's involved. Never mind the mind-blowingly naive statement of "what's wrong with steroids". I'm sure I'm not the only one that can go down the laundry list of steroid problems. Steroids is actually one of the most side-effect laden drugs in medicine, which is why it's almost always used for in the short term, and long-term usually leads to many complications. Buffalo hump. Immunosuppresion. Bone density loss. Again, laundry list, and I'm only touching the surface.



Then I have to ask you Elessar, what is the point of having a government? I could ask Annastazia the same thing. I seriously would be curious about your philosophy regarding the need for government, when you seem to want as much individual freedoms as possible. Again, no problem with that, but this issue has been discussed for centuries, and most of our views on government are founded on the philosophy of social contracts. I would recommend you read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes for starters. David Hume, Rousseau and Immanuel Kant would be others. Hobbes stated a famous Latin phrase that escapes me, but the basic premise is that without society we would live in a state of nature, free to do anything we wanted, including the freedom to kill another person much like a lion would kill another lion. Anyone in a state of nature can do whatever he/she likes. Sound familiar? Sounds an awful like what you guys are preaching.

The difference between a state of nature and what you guys are advoctating is......as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. A position I support. So how do we prevent that? According to social contracts, we allow ourselves to be ruled by government, whereby the government's role is to set up civil rights to protect it's people. In return, we voluntarily forfeit some of our freedoms for the government's protection and stewardship. Therefore, the more the government intervenes, the more individual freedoms you forfeit. The more individual freedoms you desire, the less the government is responsible.

You were on the right track Elessar when you mentioned that you could take whatever the hell you wanted, knowing full well that the goverment shouldn't have to take care of you if you get sick. You mentioned that was a different argument, but as you can see, when it comes to government, at least how it's perceived philisophically, it is two sides of the same coin. One cannot co-exist without the other. Which is why I took Fribur to task as far as how he can on the one hand support so many individual freedoms, and on the other hand expect the government to take care of all our needs. It is inviolate of the theory of social contracts, which is the basis of Western ideology on the formation of government.

So again I ask you - what is the point of government then? All you and Anna want is whatever the hell you want apparently. Individual freedoms. So why even have a government entity to tell you what you can and cannot do? Go buy an island, build a house, declare yourself a country, shoot steroids in your ass, smoke a joint or crack-rock, get sick, die, and call it a day and a life well lived. After all, what's it to us right? It's your life, do whatever the hell you want with it. I can agree with you 1,000% in that case, because you are not utilizing government resources, a government formed for the sake of protecting the interests of its citizens as a whole and not of the individual, because people who are governed realize they have entered into a social contract to be protected and cared for at the expense of some personal freedoms? You Ellesar, Anna? Have fun on your island, and I'm serious. Just don't expect someone like me to be as understanding when you are in the United States, under it's protection and stewardship, and crying like a baby about personal freedoms without having a firm understanding of what it means to be governed, especially when I'm footing part of the bill.



Well, I could say I believe you, but I would be lying. You say you read JAMA? Then prove it to me. Pull out your August 15, 2007 issue, read the lead article on HPV vaccination, and tell me who the lead author is on the first listed reference, at the back of the article. Something you can't find on the Internet hopefully. If you can do so, I will apologize to you whole-heartedly, in front of the entire Lanys community, me, a moron who doubted your veracity. If not, then I'll consider you a bullshitter who makes up crap just to save face.

Only the uninitiated would make a statement like "what is wrong with steroids". I will continue to hold that position.



Look it's Syuni, my own personal stalker. Other than personal jabs at me, I'm not sure what you have provided in the way of discussion. At least Givin, Elessar, Anna, and the rest have tried to lay out some of their views. You? Apparently your brain congeals into a fit of mental apoplexy after you type out about 20 words, because you don't seem to be able to form more than one sentence per post. Understandable then why you never seem to contribute anything worthwhile considering your linguistical handicap.

Bro,

JAMA is fully free to the public in pda format.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/298/7/743

Syuni used to stalk me!

As unpopular as it is at the moment, and as much as I've disagreed with Nek in the past, there's a lot he's said here that I agree with.

Sorry Nekrotic, it's my body and my life and regardless of what you preach, I can and will do whatever I want with it..

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

He didn't even come close to making that kind of argument. Are you even bothering to read his posts? He already pointed out he doesn't care one bit if you want to take steroids.

damn that was a stupid post, bud.

This thread is starting to give me hope.

Wow Shareef, that's pretty amazing. Actually I think it's awesome that it's available as a free resource.

In lieu of that, I will take you at your word Elessar and assume you do read JAMA if you say you do, and keeping to my word, I am a moron for doubting you.

I answered that question last page. I'll repost it here for you:

Really? I think you and I are completely different pages, but none of that requires the level of vitriol (well, unwarranted smartassery) in your replies, chief, nor did I ever question your qualifications (goes as well as the person you're directly responding to). The only reason I suggest doctor's supervision is to maintain dosage quality (and quantity to some small degree, risk a given). It's the same reason I believe in the LEGAL use of drugs. For example, I'd like to be sure my marijuana or Ecstasy is quality product and not Mexican street-level dogshit.

And my one reason for a person in excellent health to take them? Because they want to. If a person wants to jump out of an aircraft, we should probably teach them how to do so to mitigate risk as much as possible. Go to skydiving school. Enjoy your jump as safely as possible.



No. Killing another person is violating THEIR basic right to life. Taking steroids or any other drug does NOT do this. It's a strawman argument.



Again, if I drive drunk, I expect the government to arrest me in order to protect the rights of other citizens from my poor choices. Explain to me how taking steroids, using coke or even committing suicide changes this. Any preemptive intervention I'd say does exactly what you say you want to prevent, and that's restriction of freedom.



The role of the federal government was originally intended for the preservation of the rights of the states, the enforcement of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and national defense. Healthcare is nowhere listed there. Thus, in my view, it's a separate argument.



And this, sir, is EXACTLY why it doesn't work. Unlike yourself, I've actually participated in the protection and stewardship of this country. I've taken a bullet for it. That gives me MORE of a right to cry about personal freedoms. I've earned them....

To bad the above statement means dick. While I believe the above statement, it doesn't mean it applies to you. Our views on rule of law and personal freedoms are subjective. The basic understanding of the violation of others basic right to life applies. My smoking pot does NOTHING to you. At all. If I'm behind the wheel of a vehicle? Then absolutely. I'm putting the lives of others at risk. See, the act of smoking pot isn't the root cause here. My decision to drive impaired however is. The preservation of these basic rights should be the only role of government and law enforcement. I know you're educated in the effects of steroids. And I agree with you on EVERY count as to the risks. That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm pointing out that your blind arrogance in regards to your opinion is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.



There are those on these boards that I trust enough to disclose my current line of work and the groups for which I provide services. You're not one of them. My wife is also in the industry and works closely with Novation, UHC, VHA, Cardinal, ad nauseum. Believe me or not, I really don't have a reason to lie about the topic.

Again, you think I'm arguing the medical ramifications of steroid use, when I'm actually arguing as to why they're even relevant.

How about in lieu of silly internet message board "OMG BULLSHITZ!" we maintain an intelligent discourse. No need for an apology. I will disclose that I work partially on the supply chain side, which is why I have 2 Hummers in my driveway now (Fribur, feel free to chastise me ;P). We're the only ones who make any money in this business. As a provider, I'm sure you'll recognize now I'm not totally ignorant to the industry.

I personally believe that we, as North Americans, have a duty to stand for personal rights in order to set an example for people of South Africa and the people of Iraq and such as.




...




/facepalm

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

US Americans*

I retired after 22 years of service in 2005, USAF pararescue, so though I'm not versed in drug interactions as well as a Dr or a pharamcist.

I am informed enough to disagree with the bold statements that its my body I can put in it whatever I want as long as I'm

hurting anyone else are imo very weak.

disregarding alcohol for the moment alone, a majority of the people who injest drugs illegally tend to make poor moral

decisions as well. plenty of stats to back that up, if need be.

So to just blanketly say, hey we can do whatever we want, just lacks the common sense I eluded to earlier.

and yes Steroids can fit into this, though not a defintely proven fact, roid rage is enough of a factor to at least consider

that long term useage and the side effects of roids can affect others besides just the person who uses them.

I laughed .

Curious what your definition of a straw man argument are, because I've seen you throw that term around, and it's almost always inappropriately use. Not just you by the way.

As far as violating a person's basic right to life.....where there is no basic right to life in a state of nature, at least as defined by Hobbes. In his state of nature, humans freely kill other humans in the interest of self-preservation, just like every other animal on the planet. There is no such thing as "right to life", it's a state of NATURE, so only natural laws apply.

Again, none of this matters, because I already stated:



THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE, because I wanted to make it clear that what a state of nature was and what you and Anna are advocating are different, the difference being you're OK with it as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Please don't tell me your going to miss the point like Anna over and over and over again.



Using your example, you want to pick and choose what laws apply. Drunk driving = arrest me, take steroids = leave me alone. That only works in an authoritarian government like a dictatorship, with you as a dictator. In a democracy, according to social contracting, you accept what laws are consented on by the majority, and you voluntarily forfeit certain rights, as determined by the group, to allow the government the ability to establish laws and rights which benefit the group as a whole.

You are right. It is a restriction of freedom. That's the whole argument about social contracting. You allow the government to set up laws and civil rights for the protection of the group, while sacrificing a certain degree of personal freedom.

What you want is no restrictions, the ability to choose to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I understand that, for the umpteenth time. So go to your island and do that. It doesn't apply to the United States.

You conveniently skipped the first part of my post, so I will ask you again - Elessar, what is the point of having a government?



Wrong point. I was referring to this:



That's what I meant about 2 sides of the same coin. If you want to do anything you want, its ok, but you shouldn't receive the care, nor should society be providing it if you're personal actions leads to self-inflicted injuries. That's what I meant, they aren't separate or different arguments, you can't argue one without the other.



I see. So military personnel have a greater right to complain about personal freedoms than the rest of us. Is that your stance? Interesting. Forget firemen, policemen, doctors, nurses, farmers, teachers, etc....anybody else who makes this country a better place to live. They all come second to you. All hail the king, baby.



You'll find no argument with me there. It's arbitrary why marijuana should be illegal, but alcohol not. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that if you take steroids, nothing happens to you, then no biggie, more power to you, but if you take steroids, and you develop say a brain tumor, then you're shit out of luck when it comes to public assistance. This is consistent with the ideas I've laid out. Where it would be inconsistent is if you take steroids, get a brain tumor, and then the government has to foot the bill (ie the citizens), because as a democracy, somewhere along the line it was decided that steroids were illegal (for the sake of argument). The problem is, of course, that currently if you do get a brain tumor from steroids, or anything for that matter, the state is going to take care of you. Therefore, the state is going to look out for it's own interests in deciding what is and isn't legal.....and you know what? It is completely arbitrary, and some of it is complete bullshit. However, no one is forcing you to live here. These are the laws of the land, set forth supposedly for our best interests. If you can't abide by certain ones, then either empower yourself to change the law, or move somewhere where the law doesn't apply, like your island. None of us would agree with 100% of the laws we live by, but most of us abide by them because we (I think) understand that there is a greater benefit to having a government and living in relative peace, than having no laws, doing whatever we wanted, and living in anarchy.

Not a stalker, you're not that valuable to me and I don't think about you away from the boards. I serve a function - every king needs a jester to keep them humble. And lord knows, humility is something you don't possess. Hypocritical? Sure. I'm an arrogant shit. But if single-sentence sniping can get such a reaction out of you, it feels like I would be doing the world a disservice if I put away this particular toy.

Now Frib? Hells yeah, he used to infuriate me, to the point of me grumbling about him offline. All until it was revealed that I had a huge misconception which I have acknowledged. Since then I've tried to keep even tempered in my responses to him.

So kiss kiss, Nek. Love you long time!

It's like running face first into a brick wall. You responded to "military" portion w/o actually reading the rest of it. Same goes for significant points in our discussion.

And a straw man argument can be defined as the following:

Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked. I would point to your "lion killing lion" comment. The usage is proper. Check again.

Lastly, if the basis for your argument will continue to be Hobbes (and yes, I read it before first year sociology), while I'm sure it made for stimulating discussion at Community College, some of us don't subscribe to bellum omnium contra omnes. But hey, if Hobbism works for you, so be it. I'm not telling you how it is, just how I think it should be. I'm not revolting in the streets and raging against the machine. I'm just hoping we move beyond the point of narrow thinking such as yours, and especially Draconi's. Don't mistake my belief in personal responsibility for entitlement.

Anyway, carry on, boss.

I have two words:

Pete Rose...a sports legend.

Talk about someone getting treated like he'd actually killed something. It pissed me off immensely that of all people he has been singled out for shunning due to an addiction...gambling. Yet the other addictions well-represented in the sports leagues always get a pass.

In Vick's case, he actually DID kill something.

Oddly enough, I don't give a shit about the killing, so long as it was quick. It was all the other shit he did.

And as far as Pete Rose is concerned, that's what happens when you bet on baseball when you're playing it. That NBA ref got 25 years a few weeks ago for gambling.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Though I've never been a huge fan of watching sports in general, I probably would not watch for the reasons you stated(i.e. horrific moments that, while mentally it adds some interest, I'm not so sure that they're really all that entertaining). I certainly can't cross over with that comparison to football and other sports. Getting massive amounts of homeruns that are at least PARTLY attributed to your taking a drug? Sorry that doesn't excite me much. Grats on putting a pill in your mouth?

As for your argument about unbanning it as the "only way to level the playing field", I must disagree there as well. The thrust of your argument relies on one key item: that means of detection cannot exceed and catch up with the means of stealthy injection of the substance. I disagree with this particularly because I think it's always possible to get better detection methods, given scientific methods available(which I think they are). More importantly though, you could justify any kind of cheating with this logic. Stealthily corked bat? No problem, make it legal. Anything else that you can get away with, drugs or other enhancement, no problem as long as you can get away with it make it available to everyone. That just defeats the purpose of the sport.

As far as health risks, I would argue that while as a sports player you are always susceptible to injury, at least you have OPTIONS to avoid injury when it comes to playing on the field. If you play well, land right when you're taken down at the last second, and avoid certain tackles where possible you have a better chance of avoiding injury *based on how you play*. You're always going to get tackled, but depending on how you get tackled and in what position you let the person tackle you in, there's a chance you can come out of it without injury. With steroids, you're putting something directly into your body. Now of course one might suggest that you take it in moderate doses: even assuming that if you take it in small doses and on a proper regimen for taking it(which I doubt is perfectly healthy anyway, despite the contestations in this thread), there may still be an issue with allergies, or conflicts with other medications the players are taking already which could end up harming them significantly. When you inject yourself with something, you can't duck and dodge the consequences like on the field. It's final.

If I'm following (and I'm not even sure I am at this point), those in favor of steroids being allowed in pro sports agree that there are significant health risks, but it should be up to the athlete to make that decision since it is their body. If that is the assertion, it doesn't make logical sense because you would simply end up in a cycle where all athletes took them, thus maintaining the exact same talent disparity that exists in a steroid free environment, but would still have all the health issues to go along with it.

It reminds me of the cold war, except you can't bankrupt the other player in this instance.

I see, so the Necessary-and-Proper clause along with the General Welfare Clause does not exist in your Constitution. Btw, SCOTUS has held up the Hamilton view that taxation is an independent power.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 97&invol=1

Ahh, the General Welfare Clause. This one pops up from time to time. The rebuttal is as follows:

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

Much more detail here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm

I will agree however that it can be construed as ambiguous.

Sound the feasting horn!

You liked god damn freerepublic.com. This is on the same level as DU and dailykos. Logical thinking need not apply.

Secondly I am familiar with Madisonian origionalist theory. However SCOTUS does not agree with you nor Alan Chapman. SCOTUS prefers the Hamiltonian theory. Again I will rely on U.S. v. Butler.



You can pull any looneytarian you want from the internet to support Madisonian theory, in the real world SCOTUS is who interprets the Constitution, and SCOTUS has interpreted in favor of Hamiltonian theory.

Damnit, linked, not liked

And I happen to agree with this statement. I'm not arguing that this isn't how it's interpreted by the Supreme Court - I'm just stating that I believe they're not correct. Remember, I stated what *I* think the purpose of the federal govt. was intended to be.

And the source of the link wasn't typical hoohah typically seen in FR. I think they made a very valid argument that I happen to agree with. Besides, it's not like SCOTUS has ever revisited a poor ruling .

Wouldn't Hamilton be a better source for what the federal government should be then you?

To which I add three:

"Banned from baseball." No sympathy for him, and no sympathy for Vick.

--J.D.

My god, I actually agree with Doctor X on something...is the world truly ending?

_________________