Possession of anabolic steroid (for personal use) should be punished harshly

[battery]

When anabolic steroid was categorized as controlled substance in the 1980s, Congress intended to send a strong message to teenagers across America. The law reflected America's firm stance against the emergence of a new culture of enhancement drug abuse. Much like the main strategy to push cigarettes out of existence, the key to controlling dangerous misuse of steroid begins at educating the youngs.

Side effects of anabolic steroid occur only to a sub-population of users. There is no reliable method to predict who will suffer from those effects. When harmful consequence does occur to a user, it typically manifest as complicated diseases many years after the cessation of abuse. There is very little immediate feedback, in general, to the unlucky patient who will ultimately bear the consequences much later in life.

Teenagers are not mature enough to care about such long-term risks. If teenagers are foolish enough to take up smoking, they obviously don't have the capacity to properly evaluate the decision to start steroids. As parents, it is our duty is to shield them until they grow up and get a fair chance to make sound decisions.

The law against personal use of anabolic steroid must therefore be harshly enforced, and court cases be highly publicized through the media. It is expected that some 25-year-old or 30-year-old recklessly choose to abuse steroid. A dumb decision on their part. But you know what, if they choose not to take care of the health, why should you and I give a damn? Our concern is not about their well-beings, then. We may, however, exploit them to push a political agenda. By sentencing them to do long time in prison, we create an impression to our teenagers that steroid is dangerous stuff, much like LSD and ecstasy.

Trade away an irresponsible adult to better educate a promising teen? I think we come out position on the deal!
________
APPLEBEES GIFT CARDS

[Bridget]

wat

[GenghisTron]

So you want to tell people what to do with their own bodies?

[Bridget]

This is just an excuse for a lack of responsibility among parents. It sucks that teenagers ruin their lives when the consequences are not immediately obvious, but there are better ways to prevent this than making everything illegal as a safeguard. For starters, it denies the item to people mature enough to know the consequences and who should have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. It's their property. It's their life. It's none of your concern. Second, you think making something illegal is going to stop people from getting hold of it? Give me a fucking break.

[GenghisTron]

Also, what's to say that the teenager you're trying to control won't end up just using steroids when they get older anyways. People who have a penchant to gravitate towards something that is harmful to their health is probably because of their personality, and not their immaturity.

Let's pretend for a second that laws are effective (They're not) and that every teenager in the world was protected from something their feeble mind couldn't possibly comprehend. Now, think of the type of personality it requires to take up smoking, when you've been told the risks. Cancer, etc. But you chose to anyway.

A person that has this type of personality isn't too immature to make their own decisions. No, on the contrary, they know EXACTLY what they're doing. They're sacrificing their long-term health for a short-term social benefit. They don't care about cancer when they're 60 years old, and their kids are having kids. Nah, they care about getting in Susie's pants, and being 'buds' with Jake and Shawn. In the case of steroids, do you think they care about their body breaking down when they get older? Nah, of course not, they want to run and play as hard as they can for a few short years. We all went through public school, we all heard about how bad steroids were. Yadda yadda, does that stop kids today? Nope.

So, we take this personality, and we prevent them from smoking until they're 'mature'. Guess what, they become mature enough to start smoking, they're going to start right away.

You have to take psychology into mind. Often times when you tell kids that they can't do something, or have something, that makes them want it more. That's why kids are so mischievous. You say 'no', and they automatically want it more. So when you make a law telling kids they can't do x, that makes them want it more.

ON TOP OF THAT, you have the fact that, criminalizing certain things makes that activity MORE dangerous. Take alcohol for example. You can't drink until you're 21. Sound good? Not really. When you criminalize underage drinking, what ends up happening is, you push the would-be drinking crowd (17+ year olds) into private homes. They definitely can't drink in public, so the only alternative option is to do it on the weekend. When you force kids to do it on the weekend, in private homes, you eventually end up with parties. What happens at parties? Binge drinking with no parental oversight. By forcing young adults out of bars (Where there's adults that are able to tell a kid 'thats enough', or to call for help if it's ever needed), you then shift them into dangerous house parties, where everyone binge drinks, other drugs are passed around (Oh yea, date rape is a huge problem at parties, also, gj), and there's no oversight. How many times have you heard about the story where someone was drunk, passed out, and their friends put them in a bed, and they ended up choking on their own vomit in their sleep? Ah right, if you didn't kick young adults out of bars, that wouldn't have happened!

Same thing with a lot of recreational drugs, like Marijuana for example. Marijuana itself isn't dangerous, but it's illegal. What has making marijuana illegal done? Well, it has made things more dangerous. Outlawing drugs makes black markets. Black markets make it so that the underground can really only sell it, and that means kids are buying drugs from dealers who have connections to dangerous crime syndicates/cartels. There's also a chance you could get laced weed, among many other dangers.

Then, you take someone who is cautious, and is aware of long-term consequences. Someone like this usually wouldn't succumb to societal/social pressures to 'be cool'. They've taken their own initiative to not smoke/drink or anything like that. Why is this person so different, he doesn't need a law telling him he can't do x or z, because he already knows why he shouldn't do x or z. He realizes that sacrificing long-term prosperity for short-term reward is never a good trade-off.

The simple fact is, since the beginning of time, most (not all) teenagers have ignored their parents' best wishes, ignored laws, and smoke pot/cigarettes, and drink alcohol. A law won't stop a teenager from doing what he/she wants. The PROBLEM is the personalities of kids today, it's not the lack of laws. Laws just create perverse incentives, and they actually achieve exactly the opposite of what they were intended for--the law of unintended consequences.

Like I said earlier, do you really think a law is going to stop a teenager who KNOWS the risks of smoking/drinking, but decide to do it anyways to be 'cool'? No, you have someone who is commonly referred to as a 'mental midget'. The problem is their parents were most likely clueless.


(Sorry if this post is all over the place, I'm a little sleep deprived)

[battery]

I agree with you that the best way to trick a teenager to do something is to make it sound dangerous and taboo. Human psychology at work.

But culture and society, I believe, exert an influence far greater. 40 years ago, cigarette smoking was considered sexy and cool. A personality was partly defined by the person's taste and pick of cigarette brand. Smoking was normal, period.


Then, the Congress enacted law to curtain tobacco advertisement aimed at teens. A public propaganda preach that smokers are bad guys, abusive fathers who don't give a shit about health of his family (second-hand smoke).

Pick a random teenager on the street today, and interview him on TV. Even a smoker teenager will tell a lie in front of the camera and claims that smoking is uncool.

Why? Because of shame, social norms, and the pressure to fit in.

Unsurprisingly, teenage smoking declined from 35 something percent to 25 percent. Here, social stigma at work.

Of course some teenager will take up smoking no matter what. But how about the teenagers who are more easily influence by social pressure? Why not save that bunch? They represent a huge group of Americans!


So why not repeat the strategy with steroid?
________
EXTREME Q VAPORIZER

[squeek.]

So we need to make muscles uncool?

Sounds easy enough.

[battery]

Big muscles are cool but they ain't enough.

What's better is naturally big muscles resulting from hard training and superior genetics.

If you were a woman picking mate, don't you want to easily which men have better genes? Pick a men who grew big on steroid, and your future teenager will have to rely on steroids too!
________
Yamaha Psr-500M History

[squeek.]

Wait, so muscles are cool now?

I'm confused.

[FrenchToast]

No, genetically superior kids with muscles are cool. That sounds like the message to deliver, imho.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by battery

I agree with you that the best way to trick a teenager to do something is to make it sound dangerous and taboo. Human psychology at work.

But culture and society, I believe, exert an influence far greater. 40 years ago, cigarette smoking was considered sexy and cool. A personality was partly defined by the person's taste and pick of cigarette brand. Smoking was normal, period.


Then, the Congress enacted law to curtain tobacco advertisement aimed at teens. A public propaganda preach that smokers are bad guys, abusive fathers who don't give a shit about health of his family (second-hand smoke).

Pick a random teenager on the street today, and interview him on TV. Even a smoker teenager will tell a lie in front of the camera and claims that smoking is uncool.

Why? Because of shame, social norms, and the pressure to fit in.

Unsurprisingly, teenage smoking declined from 35 something percent to 25 percent. Here, social stigma at work.

Of course some teenager will take up smoking no matter what. But how about the teenagers who are more easily influence by social pressure? Why not save that bunch? They represent a huge group of Americans!


So why not repeat the strategy with steroid?

I think you missed my point entirely. Kids who are dumb enough to get into these types of self-harming activities are kids that won't be affected by laws or ad campaigns telling them x is bad for them. They already know the consequences, they don't care about the consequences. They are seeking short-term satisfaction.

On an ethical level, I also disagree with using FORCE to tell someone how to live their own lives. Is it sad what arises out of steroid abuse from a young age? Certainly. But how is using FORCE to tell someone who is of competent and sound thinking that they can't do something, even if they think it's in their best interests.

Obviously this axiom doesn't apply to EVERYTHING (mind/mood altering drugs, etc.) but I think it stays pretty true, especially for victimless crimes.

Ethically, and epistemologically, it's wrong to force people to make them live their lives a certain way, especially when they don't even care about the consequences. Nothing short of state-sponsored violence (or threat of violence) will stop someone from doing something, in which case you have just become the bigger public enemy.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

No, genetically superior kids with muscles are cool. That sounds like the message to deliver, imho.

How is that a better message to deliver? All that is saying is that 'you don't physically have the capability to become strong (because of who you are), so you should just give up!'.

That's hardly a more desirable outcome.

How about a much more ethical approach, and let reckless people be reckless. How about we realize that every individual is sovereign, and they have a right to self-ownership, and thus, should be free to harm themselves as much as they want, as long as they don't harm someone else in the process?

In other words, your right to punch me in the face ends where my face begins.

[battery]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

I think you missed my point entirely. Kids who are dumb enough to get into these types of self-harming activities are kids that won't be affected by laws or ad campaigns telling them x is bad for them. They already know the consequences, they don't care about the consequences. They are seeking short-term satisfaction.

On an ethical level, I also disagree with using FORCE to tell someone how to live their own lives. Is it sad what arises out of steroid abuse from a young age? Certainly. But how is using FORCE to tell someone who is of competent and sound thinking that they can't do something, even if they think it's in their best interests.

Obviously this axiom doesn't apply to EVERYTHING (mind/mood altering drugs, etc.) but I think it stays pretty true, especially for victimless crimes.

Ethically, and epistemologically, it's wrong to force people to make them live their lives a certain way, especially when they don't even care about the consequences. Nothing short of state-sponsored violence (or threat of violence) will stop someone from doing something, in which case you have just become the bigger public enemy.

I concede that some kids will do drugs, cigarettes and steroids regardless of the consequences. However, the reality is that most kids are spineless and they are easily molded by their peers and mass media. We can protect them with such simple solutions.

For the more unruly teens, society can consider other strategies. Yes, it will be tough and costly, but these kids form a minority, fortunately.

My belief is that teenagers should not be given full freedom until they turn adults. Parents, in conjunction with the government, has complete responsibility and control over teenagers' behaviors.

Regarding adult abuser of steroids. They are adults, and they have votes. Every citizen must be prepared to defend his self-interests against democracy. Democracy allows more influential citizens to get what they want at other citizens' expenses. Democracy is not justice. America has chosen to elect a democratic from of government, so I do not feel morally wrong to take advantage of the system. I don't give a damn about steroid abusers, so I have no qualm throwing them into jail for personal choices like injecting steroids. I want my teenager to live in a society where steroid abuse is taboo and shameful. I don't mind drawing upon the power of democracy to accomplish this. Adult abusers have votes and therefore can defend themselves against people who think like me. The can take care of themselves. I feel no morally duty to consider their interests, as long as we insist on playing by democratic rules.
________
Teen Xxx

[Ricey]

Originally Posted by battery

Big muscles are cool but they ain't enough.

What's better is naturally big muscles resulting from hard training and superior genetics.

If you were a woman picking mate, don't you want to easily which men have better genes? Pick a men who grew big on steroid, and your future teenager will have to rely on steroids too!

I hate this topic more than religion, much more.

I'll ask you this, How many people in the body building world use steroids, how many use them in sports? You'll be shocked.



http://www.thecinemasource.com/movie...Muscle_Cow.jpg

The guy is Chris Bell, the cow? God Cow, he could rip your face off with those muscles. Can you tell which one is all natural.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by battery

I concede that some kids will do drugs, cigarettes and steroids regardless of the consequences. However, the reality is that most kids are spineless and they are easily molded by their peers and mass media. We can protect them with such simple solutions.

For the more unruly teens, society can consider other strategies. Yes, it will be tough and costly, but these kids form a minority, fortunately.

My belief is that teenagers should not be given full freedom until they turn adults. Parents, in conjunction with the government, has complete responsibility and control over teenagers' behaviors.

Regarding adult abuser of steroids. They are adults, and they have votes. Every citizen must be prepared to defend his self-interests against democracy. Democracy allows more influential citizens to get what they want at other citizens' expenses. Democracy is not justice. America has chosen to elect a democratic from of government, so I do not feel morally wrong to take advantage of the system. I don't give a damn about steroid abusers, so I have no qualm throwing them into jail for personal choices like injecting steroids. I want my teenager to live in a society where steroid abuse is taboo and shameful. I don't mind drawing upon the power of democracy to accomplish this. Adult abusers have votes and therefore can defend themselves against people who think like me. The can take care of themselves. I feel no morally duty to consider their interests, as long as we insist on playing by democratic rules.

So you answered my question. You have no qualms with using FORCE to make society follow your ideal. That's pretty morally bankrupt, if you ask me.

I mean come on, you have no problem basically brain-washing kids into believing what you think is right? You're no different than the neo-cons who don't support equal rights for gays.

[battery]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

So you answered my question. You have no qualms with using FORCE to make society follow your ideal. That's pretty morally bankrupt, if you ask me.

I mean come on, you have no problem basically brain-washing kids into believing what you think is right? You're no different than the neo-cons who don't support equal rights for gays.

I respect equal rights for gays not because I think homosexuality is moral. I don't. I respect their rights because they were obtained through masterful works of politics. I mean, gay people did influenced the right people, wisely invested capital, and maintained unity at all times. They earned their rights (through "force" ) fair and square.
________
Michigan medical marijuana

[GenghisTron]

Sigh, I'm done here.

[battery]

And I will tell you this: I choose not to vote against gay rights because I believed our country should give the idea a try. If, in the future, gay rights prove to be a mistake, I will not hesitate cast the votes to ban gay rights. IMO, the so-call gay rights are not a the kind of rights people are born with. It has to be maintained by gay people through socially responsible actions and political capital.
________
Blowjob Spanish

[mervaka]

easy fix: people do what they want, but if they fuck themselves up they pay health costs out their own pocket.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by battery

And I will tell you this: I choose not to vote against gay rights because I believed our country should give the idea a try. If, in the future, gay rights prove to be a mistake, I will not hesitate cast the votes to ban gay rights. IMO, the so-call gay rights are not a the kind of rights people are born with. It has to be maintained by gay people through socially responsible actions and political capital.

You're missing my point (again). I didn't introduce gay rights to talk about gay rights, I introduced that topic to compare you to the Neo-conservatives who wish to impose their view on the rest of society. That's what you're trying to do. You're trying to impose your view of morality on the rest of the population.

It was an anecdote, I used it to support my position that you're a moral authoritarian.