In response to:

Ban This! Ban That! Ban This and That!

gtanv Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 10:36 AM
In general, I agree with this, but comparing steroids to lasik surgery or better shoes is silly. The steroid use can have severe long term debilitating effect. Allowing their use basically says the competition goes to the most desperate. If one player gets better shoes, other players also get better shoes, no big deal. If one player uses steroids, others do it or fall behind.....it's unreasonable to tell an athlete that in order to compete he has to subject himself to drugs that have the long tern effects of steroids. I have no problem with saying there are certain things that should not be allowed.
Texas Chris Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 2:02 PM
There are long term side effect to wearing certain kinds of shoes. Lasic surgeries have their risks, too. There are risks with any activity.

The point is that it's not the government's business to prohibit or subsidize any activity.
amackent Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 12:33 PM
You're completely missing the point. The NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, NCAA, and any other sports org can ban steroids or other supplements all day long and nobody will object. Almost everybody, in fact, will support such bans. All John's asking is why this has to be a federal issue. Where in the constitution does it grant the Federal government any say in what we put in our bodies? Isn't it incomprehensibly foolish for our US Senators and Representatives to be wasting their time on MLB players? We're simply saying that if federalism, freedom, and constitutional government have any meaning, then this shouldn't be a matter for debate at the Federal level. More so, it shouldn't even be a criminal matter at any level.
Texas Chris Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 2:05 PM
I don't care if they waste THEIR time... Just not MY time by wasting MY money!
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 11:18 AM
Re: gtanv,

-- The steroid use can have severe long term debilitating effect. --

And that falls smack into the category of "IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM"

-- it's unreasonable to tell an athlete that in order to compete he has to subject himself to drugs that have the long tern effects of steroids --

And the VERY MOMENT you see someone place a gun on the head of an athlete to make him or her use steroids, I will be right on your side to express outrage and make some fist waving. IN THE MEANTIME, mind your own business.
rickmcq Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 11:42 AM
Agreed, OldMex. If an athlete cannot be allowed choose to risk long-term health by using steroids, why should the athlete be allowed to choose to risk long-term by being punched in the head, being sacked in the end zone, by facing a high-and-tight fastball, by going off the ski jump, etc. Big Brother always knows best, after all ...
Dorothy152 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 11:09 AM
Educate the athlete to the results of steroid use and let him make his own decision. Alcohol and too much food also have bad results! The laws that say you can't leave a child in a car unattended has not done anything to protect the forgotten child but it has created more work and income for lawyers.
We are allowing too many lawyers to run our lives, including those layer politicians!
SMyles Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 11:22 AM
Exactly Dorothy. gtanv is caught up in the comparison rather than the principle.
gtanv Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 1:34 PM
No, I'm not. If the athlete has to use to compete, he isn't making his own choice.
Texas Chris Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 2:03 PM
Yes, he is. He is not forced to be an athlete, he can be a chef, an engineer, whatever.
None1257 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 10:48 AM
How many of these people who do use steroids, are completely unaware of the potential downside of using the stuff? As for steroids, if they were allowed, and "if" they do make you better than anyone else who participates in that sport, wouldn't just about all the other people who that person competes against, do the same thing?

I like to bet on sports. Having a stake in the game, even if it's just five bucks, makes it more exciting. I also like playing poker. "Unacceptable!" say politicians in much of America. "Gambling sometimes leads to 'addiction,' destitute families!"

Well, it can.

So politicians ban it. It's why we no longer see a poker game in the back of bars. Half the states even ban poker between friends -- though they rarely enforce that.

After banning things, politicians' second favorite activity is granting special privileges to a few people who do those same things -- so big casinos flourish, and most...