Last night as I watched ESPN Outside of the Lines, everything I have said about baseball, steroids, and cheating came full circle.The episode last night was about the rampant use of amphetamines in baseball, otherwise knows as “Greenies.”Apparently many players including HOF players such as Mike Schmidt used amphetamines just to perform.So where does that leave us in the world of post steroids?Will the debate take a new twist and turn down Bud Selig Lane? I doubt it, especially with his choice for the special investigation. There is no way that someone so close to baseball will be able to give an impartial report on the use of steroids. His report will be filled with useless information that I believe will implicate no one and only stir up the murky waters of an already clouded debate.
Cheating has been a part of baseball since its inception.First players used improper equipment such as Babe Ruth’s infamous laminated bat to ####lordper139700.html">####lord Perry and the use of spit balls.Spit balls were outlawed in 1919, coincidentally the very last year of Babe Ruth’s full year as a pitcher.They were outlawed to give the batter an advantage at the plate.Today we have steroids, but long before steroids were a hot button topic, Greenies were prevalent in the world of major league baseball.
Players have admitted to taking them to get up for a day game after a night game.Players would take them to give them a mental advantage as well as the energy to perform.They believed they had strength beyond what they had and it enabled them to go out and perform at unbelievable levels of play when they were dead tired. On this episode of OTL, many players admitted and were accused of using amphetamines. This is nothing new in sports, it just appears the MLB is finally doing something about it.
You can be one of those people who try to dismiss their use because they are not anabolic in nature, building of muscle, but the fact is they are performance enhancing and they are on MLB’s banned substance list now.For those who say that steroids were not banned prior to 2002-03 but were illegal by the laws of the United States, I would make the argument that amphetamines have been illegal much longer than many steroids have been.The fact is that if you go down that slippery slope of calling the players who used steroids cheaters, then you have to say the same thing about a HOF liker Mike Schmidt.
The world of chemical supplements is one that has always been prevalent in sports as players are always looking for an edge.Those who used greenies were doing so to gain an advantage and it had nothing to do with personal addictions such as Doc Gooden and his cocaine abuse.Although the use of amphetamines can turn into a horrible addiction, these men were not using them towards that end but rather to physically be able to go to the ballpark and perform when their bodies did not want to do otherwise.That is really what many steroids do when they allow players to heal faster and then go back to the weight room sooner than normal.
Like it or not, the steroid controversy is not over and it will only intensify now that ex-senator George Mitchell is investigating this whole issue. New allegations will surface with each HR Bonds swats out of the ballpark and as he advances beyond Babe Ruth his critics will deride his many accomplishments.Game of Shadows will raise more questions than it will answer especially since Victor Conte has gone on the record saying Barry was never given steroids from his company.One thing is for sure.Players are always looking for the advantage and it will never stop.Today’s players may not use steroids but tomorrow’s athletes will continue to try to compete with enhanced vision equipment such as the MaxSight by Nike or better supplements.
I saw that last night, too, and I completely condone the use of amphetamines. I'd rather see Bobby Abreu out in right field for 150 games on amphetamines than out there in right field for 120 and completely "clean" or having to resort to drinking Red Bull, coffee, and other stimulants.
Fans want to have their cake and eat it, too. Grind out a 162-game season, play double-headers and day games after night games, but only do it naturally (as if Red Bull and multiple cups of coffee are any more natural than amphetamines).
When baseball games read "1-0" more frequently in the box scores come summer and into September, I'm sure fans will be whining about the lack of offense, the more players landing on the DL, and the amount of playing time of their star players decreasing. And yet, they want all of these performance enhancers outlawed.
SoCal: I was incredibly surprised to see a public comment from Bill Bavasi in the Mariners' own magazine when I went to the game on Monday where he said that the team is well aware of the amphetamine issue and are working to help the players deal with it. Then he went on to say that every truck driver, late waitperson and night shift worker is on them, it's not just baseball. Let us hope that he doesn't honestly believe the EVERY part of that statement and hope to use it for an excuse. Never once when I worked nights was I tempted to use them, because the darn things can kill you in a New York minute. Yes, I have known people who do use them, but such a sweeping generalization/excuse from a baseball exec (and one from such a prominent baseball family) is just downright scary.
I have to think that this piece ESPN did is absolutely stupid. I have never seen anything more blown out of rediculousness. All they are is basic non-drowsy pills for goodness sakes. Why don't we outlaw bottles of pops and make a huge investigation about the dangers of caffiene on today's players. I realy think this is obsurd and overanalyzed. I used to drink two bottles of Jolt pop before football games, did that make me a drug abuser? I think not.
Ultra, I agree that they are used, but I do think they should be outlawed. I just don't think records should be erased. You and I do differ on steroids, I just don't think past sins should be penalized when MLB winked at it to begin with.
Sleepless, it is a huge problem and I agree with you that those things can kill you. Dmat, you may not be aware of it, but amphetamines, meth (just soupled up amphetamines) are highly addictive and dangerous. They put unnatural strains on your heart and many people have died using them. This was a very appropriate show by OTL, but it does highlight that HOF players have been using performance enhancers for as long as the game has been played. For some reason only Bonds suffers reproach from the media and it is not because he does not admit it. He would only be crucified evern further if he admitted it to the press.
dmat: Amphetamines, otherwise known as speed, ARE drugs of abuse. Caffeine can be abused, but legally, which amphetamines cannot. They are a controlled substance and require a special prescription to obtain. I've watched med students down them like M&M's and then pay the price when the 48-72 straight hours that they had to work caught up with them after taking the drugs. You may be a caffeine addict, and you may pay the price later with high blood pressure or pancreatic cancer, but that is completely different than the extremely fast heart rates and other things that the speed can cause.
OOPS--great minds run in the same circles. SoCal must have been posting at the same time I was.
Last edited by sleeplessinseattle on April 5th at 1:49 PM.
As to working 162 game season, I work 12 months out of the year with a few holidays. That is my job and I only wish that I could go stand in an outfield or on a base, then in a dugout, then at a plate with a bat for 3 hours. Please, taking amphetamines for playing a sport is no excuse. I can think of several million reasons to show up at the ballpark if I am a player and they are all green, just not benny green.
Socal, I doubt you do any kind of strenuous physical labor. Most jobs involve sitting in front of a computer nowadays. Baseball is a physically exhausting sport, believe it or not, especially over the course of a 162-game season (plus spring training, WBC, the All-Star festivities, playoffs and winter ball -- it can end up being a year-round thing).
To ask these players to perform at the highest level completely unabated is wishful thinking. You'll be wishing these players had the "greenies" when it's August and your team just lost four straight 1-0 games, and your star outfielder is going to sit out a week's worth of games due to exhaustion.
Definitely shouldn't be in the same category as steroids. But...just another example of MLB ignoring the problem.
In this instance though...usually employers use drug testing for safety concerns. Would a baseball player on amphetamines be more likely to cause harm, or injury? If that can't really be proven, then what is the point of drug testing for it? It isn't the employers job to make sure each employee is abiding by every single law. Now if they are arrested...that is a different story.
Should they also put monitors on player vehicles, to make sure they obey all traffic laws? Is it up to them to have player DWI checkpoints? At some point, the MLB needs to act like a real employer...and keep up with society.
so drugs should be legalized now, so that recreational sports can be enjoyed more by the common fan? no, i highly doubt fans would support legalizing this stuff simply to make a 3 1/2 hour baseball game generate more runs and excitement. if baseball didnt take so long to complete a game, nobody would care how many runs were scored. isnt that why the nfl and nba have been trying to cut down the time needed to play the games? these guys arent popping pills and injecting stuff in their arms to satisfy the fan's desire to see them play every day, they're doing it so they can break more records, and reach performance clauses in their contracts, all to feed their egos.
as for the question about it being the employer's job to make sure the employees abide by the law, half the owners in pro sports arent that involved in their team's day-to-day business, and GM's, coaches and managers are more worried about winning, in the hopes it will mean they still have a job next season, that they arent going to blow the whistle on their star player(s). even if they wanted to, or did, do you think the GM's and owners are going to suspend these guys, since their own sport didnt feel it was necessary to ban the use of these substances.
why should MLB have to ban a substance which is already illegal in the USA? and now, because it helps us be entertained every day, these drugs should be legalized? come on, is that what it boils down to? our desperate need for entertainment justifies the legality of drugs which can cause a wide variety of side effects later in life, even birth defects. sure, lets just let everyone take this stuff, and watch all the babies being born have down syndrome, physical limitatios, possible disfiguration. who cares? as long as we're entertained RIGHT NOW, dont worry about the future. thats pretty easy for these guys to do, until its THEIR kid who has birth defects.
Ultra, I am for fair competition. You seem to think that all baseball fans care about are HR's and the score. Quite the contrary, I can enjoy a well pitched no hitter or low scoring game just as much as a 10 run affair. To me the only question is making it an equal playing field. I have no problem with Steroids or any other illegal drug being illegal. My problem is with the hypocrisy in sports to want to ban Barry for what was legal and not go after Mike Schmidt or ####lord Perry who definitely cheated and admits to it in his own book. Why is it okay for a guy like Perry to cheat repeatedly over the course of his career, get caught in 1983, admit to it, write about it, and no one is outraged that he is in HOF, but BArry has not had one single positive test and yet his accomplishments should be banned. Let them both stand and accept that a certain amount of drugs are there, but I am all for trying to eliminate illegal drugs.
I'm not going to argue that this should be investigated as well. The question I have is was this illegal at the time? Steroids were disallowed comparitively recently, I think the "investigation" (and yes Bud is an #### and several other things I won't say here--Do the Nationals have an owner? No? Bud can't chew gum and walk at the same time?) only covers the last couple of years--I think it's just for show anyway. What could legitimately be "discovered? If it was illegal, I hope they investigate this as well, but I doubt they will.
I still think Bonds is juicing, even if I think the way MLB is handling this is a joke.
If Bonds is juicing now, then he should test positive for steroids and they are testing them all. I don't think he is now but he probably did for 3-4 years.
Cuziffer, these athletes (and people in general) are adults and should be able to use their bodies as they wish, including having the freedom to choose what substances go in and out of their bodies. Yes, drugs have some potentially nasty side effects, but if that's what a person wants to do with his or her body, who should stop him or her? It's no different than bungee jumping.
Socal, I know almost all fans love a lively, high-powered offensive game. I am arguably the biggest baseball fan on here, and even I will tell you that I have trouble sticking around past the fifth inning of a low-scoring affair. The American attention span is short enough to lose interest in the game if there aren't all kinds of diving plays, homeruns, triples in the gap, etc. Some fans enjoy a low-scoring affair, but I doubt they can sit all the way from the top of the first to the bottom of the ninth without so much as a yawn. That's just the truth.
footnote to socal's point: i'm not about homeruns and big scores. to be perfectly honest, i'm probably a notch or 2 below "casual fan" status. but here's the kicker. i dislike the braves, and never cared much for the astros. they played each other for the NL pennant. you know which game i actually watched? the 18 inning marathon. if i was only interested in big scores and home runs, that was NOT the game to watch. and considering the game lasted some 6 hours and change, it surprised me i had the patience to sit through it all. the pitcher's duel was intense, regardless of how bad the 2 offenses may have been.
now, for the most important question Ultra. if you believe, as adults, people should be able to "do with their bodies as they please," should we just legalize everything? sure, it would cut down on drug trafficking, but what about the countless deaths caused by morons who get high, then get behind the wheel of a car, or operate construction equipment....or, wait...are we only supposed to legalize it for those in the entertainment industries?
this just gets back to a point i've already made, in which MLB shouldnt have felt the need to create its own substance policy, when these drugs were already illegal according to criminal law. we cant just keep allowing professional athletes, actors, singers, comedians, and models to live by a different set of rules. the sad part is, as it stands now, we let them get away with it, and ultimately, THAT is what will end up as the basis for legalizing this stuff. celebrities set the standard, and everyone else is supposed to follow along.
I can recall reading "Ball Four" when I was around 12 or 13, and in that book, greenies are discussed specifically and a lot. That book came out around 1970 or so, and the use of amphetamines was by no means new at that time, nor was it new a decade earlier when Jim Bouton broke into the big leagues.
I don't have a problem with baseball having a substance abuse policy in addition to the criminal statutes already on the books, lots of businesses and entire industries do the same thing.
i dont have a problem with them having a substance policy either half, i just wonder if MLB, or the NFL, or the local factory should really feel the need to remind us that drugs are illegal. i dont have a problem with taking a pre-employment drug screen, or going over various things that the law doesnt cover, i just think its odd that we have to be reminded twice about what is legal and what isnt. whats next? our employers will feel the need to tell us rape is against their company policy, if it occurs on company property?
I agree with that and, in reality, substance abuse policies in the "real world" exist in large part to protect the employee as well as the company. Instead of being fired outright for a first offense, the employee might have the opportunity to complete a rehab and keep his job.
Something tells me in the world of big-time sports this wouldn't be an issue. If you can help a team win, someone will hire you, just look at Doc Gooden, he continued to compete with his drug problems for over a decade....
thats exactly my point. and after all that garbage, somehow people feel sorry for him. same goes for darryl strawberry. in the "real world," you'd get 2 chances tops before you get thrown out on your rear end, and nobody wants to consider hiring you. just about every job application i've filled out has something about if you have a criminal record, or have ever used/do use drugs. 1 place i remember having an interview, where they as much as said "we dont mind if you do drugs, just so we know what drug(s) and how much/often you do it. i got up and walked out.
Cuz, I refer you to my Why Drugs Should Be Legalized article. I call for the legalization of private drug use, and I think that stiffer penalties should be enforced if someone gets behind the wheel of a vehicle or endangers the public in any other way in an altered state of mind.
Besides, that stuff is covered under tort law: the right to be free from bodily harm. It's pretty much a given with the legalization of drugs.
The reason why marijuana and cocaine are illegal is because it creates competition for the pharmaceutical companies, which have Congress in its back pocket. If people are relieving stress and depression through marijuana and cocaine, which are from other countries for the most part, then people are not going to have the need for prescription drugs like Ambien and Prozac.
in my mind, "private" drug use does not mean doping up and playing sports. what am i not getting here? i also dont think people should be forgiven just because they keep their drug use private. just because joe public can perform basically the same under the influence of marijuana doesnt mean he should be allowed to do so. same goes for alcohol. if that were true, i know a guy who'd be hammered 24/7. come to think of it, he was hammered quite a bit, and missed plenty of work because of it. not because he couldnt necessarily perform his duties, but because being drunk on the job isnt accepted very well, plus the increased risk of injury, not only to himself but to anyone working around him.
"private" drug use to me sounds like "private addiction" where a person cant function without getting his or her fix regularly.
But what's the difference between being addicted to cigarettes, or to a morning cup of coffee, or a sleep aid, as compared to cocaine? And marijuana is barely, if at all addictive. The only reason why drugs like cocaine are illegal is because it would cut into the profits of the pharmaceutical companies -- that's the only reason; the health of an individual is not on the list of priorities or else we'd have nationalized healthcare by now.
And who are you, or anyone else, to dictate what can go in someone's body?
who are you to say that its ok to use cocaine or smoke pot because you dont think it has much effect on a person? the bloodshot eyes, the withdrawal symptoms, shouldnt matter or dont count? i dont believe for a minute that the only reason they're not legalized is because the pharmacutical companies wouldnt get a cut of the pie. granted, they wouldnt, since its obvious these drugs currently arent distributed by them, but thats not why they havent been legalized.
and yes, i've seen the withdrawal symptoms of someone who quit smoking, or was forced to go without coffee for a period of time. (a friend of mine had her teeth removed, and was fitted with dentures, it just so happens both contributed greatly to her teeth rotting) she knew it, i knew it, nobody denied the fact that they were both partly to blame for the problem. but neither the nicotine or the caffeine withdrawals made her anything other than ornery, and gave her 1 mega headache. i'm not denying any drug has side effects, i never have. i dont even really agree that nicotine or caffeine should be so freely used. i have never had much tolerance for any drugs, whether they be legal, prescription, or otherwise. the truth is, there are no drugs that are 100% risk free or side effect free, and THAT is why i'll never change my stance on them. maybe i'm wrong for giving a damn about other people's health, but if so, i guess i'll just have to live with it.
Socal: Though we tend to be on opposite sides of the Bonds/Steriods issue, I competely agree with you about the use of the "greenies". (Does Mike Greenberg have a patent on that name, I hope?) Like you said, if you can't garner enough energy to stand in the dugout, play the field and bat, then what are you doing in this profession to begin with? I'm sure anyone who's had a newborn baby, plus other kids and a full time job can tell you they could use the "speed" more than the baseball players could. Good post, again!
cuz--You have no tolerance for prescription drugs? You don't take anti-biotics? How about Aspirin? Some people have religious issues like Jehovah's Witnesses, and I guess I can sort of understand that. But not all of us want to die young from pneumonia or fall asleep at the wheel because we don't want to stop for a cup of coffee.
The "war on drugs": The US has been fighting and losing badly for 20 years--time to change the battle plan.
Thanks Moore, Crab, Cuz, and Ultra for the comments. They are what they are. Legalizing drugs is really not the topic. The point I was trying to make is that amphetamines are performance enhancing and thereby illegal. They will get you kicked out of Olympic sports as well because it is a fact they give you an unfair advantage unless everyone is on them. If nothing else, all PE's including anabolic steroids, give players a huge mental advantage because they think they are invulnerable.
Second point is that if players like Schmidt and Perry who "cheated" are in the HOF then Bonds will make it too without an asterisk. You can not penalize him on "su####ion" and not penalize these known offenders. Just be fair is all I am asking.
You know, I have commented before on Bonds, steroids, jerks in all sports. Mostly just to fuel fires or dispute ignorant racial comments. That said, I don't give a damn about any of it. I love football, but my life doesn't revolve around it. Golf is my passion, to play and to watch. I love the fact that you earn your money, there isn't a lot chatter about #### officiating or "no respect" or "gettin' paid! To that end, the records anymore are meaningless, does anybody really care who hits the most home uns, history will decide who the real heroes are. Bonds may be many things, he is not a champion and he isn't a heroic figure! The TO's of the world don't make a difference in society, they're like circus animals that can talk. Hey, just entertain and then go away!
This whole steroid issue is getting old fast. I realize that it's illegal and an ethical issue when it comes to records, etc. All I'm saying is that it's getting dragged on too long and too much is being made of it.
Now it's greenies? That makes sense for that era of baseball. Back then that was the drug of the day where as now it's meth, a much more addicting and dangerous form of speed. Once again my point is who cares? Lets just play baseball, do the random drug tests and move on. This whole thing is just a political football that just distracts us from the game.
Great post though socal as usual. Very informative and insightful. I just wish the whole subject would go away. Having the senate and congress involved is stupid and a waste of time.
Last edited by Johhnystorm on April 6th at 10:13 AM.
Dr Crab. i should have been more clear on that no tolerance comment. i have tolerance for prescription drugs, if they are used for what they are supposed to be used for, and for only the length of time required to heal whatever it is they are made for. where i lose that tolerance is when people fake an illness or sore muscles or whatever just to get their hands on vicodin (brett favre) or other addictive drugs. sleep aides have been found to be addictive if taken over an extended period of time. i have no problem with someone taking penicillin for its intended use, for the time required for it to do what it is supposed to do.
i dont have a problem with people who drink coffee or mountain dew (myself) either. the point i was trying to make there is that i've seen the effects of people who suffer from withdrawal symptoms if they arent able to keep feeding their fix.
fyi...nothing i believe in or have a strong opinion about is based on religious beliefs....thats as close as i'll ever get to discussing religion here.
personally, i've gone through stretches where i would drink anywhere from 8 to 12 cans of the dew per day. i tried quitting cold turkey (doctor said to cut out alot of stuff because i had ulcers) and found out what a headache really is. my friend, that couldnt drink coffee for 1 day, i honestly dont know how she did it. her daily routine is to drink as much coffee as she possibly can, smoke whenever she is allowed to (cant smoke during work hours) and eat 1 meal consisting of basically a salad and whatever else she is sure wont cause her to gain any weight. in terms of caffeine, moderation is the key, her addiction to it is not healthy. and i dont think someone who thinks smoking pot is "ok" can honestly say it has no effect on anything they do day-to-day.
cuz--I completely understand where you're coming from. The abuse of pain and anxiety meds has made it hard on the people who use them legitimately. Some doctors don't prescribe these meds even to someone who really needs them. I was on pain meds for my wisdom teeth, and was easily able to break the 36-hour "habit."
As far as pot is concerned, I agree with you about everyday use. I would put it in the same category as alcoholism: it hampers your effectiveness in many areas. I don't have a problem i####uy wants to smoke a joint on his back porch Friday night, as long as he's not high all weekend.
Johnny, Foozle, thanks for the comments. I too just want the steroid debate to go away, but ESPN and Bud want let it die so I will write on these topics when I see them. Foozle, at least we both have the same passion as I love golf too. But did you know Golfers are taking anti depression medication to calm their nerves so they can put. What do you think of that?
Cuz, Dr.Crab. Good points and all on meds. Cuz, I am a Diet Dew person and have one every morning. I do think anything in excess can be wrong and most things in moderation are okay. Unfortunatley, the very nature of drugs is to do them in excess and the end result is never good.
an ex g/f of mine, while we were dating, confessed to me that she had smoked pot in the past. i calmly told her if she ever did it while we were a couple, we were finished. she thought i was overreacting, and stormed out the door saying if i felt that way, she didnt see any point in continuing the relationship. did i overreact? or did i simply make my stance clear? did she overreact by stomping out the door in a fit? i think so. i disregarded her past use, which kind of surprised me to be honest. i could have said it was done right then and there because of that. thats just the way i am.
i think the favre situation says alot about my stance on prescription drugs. he was given vicodin by the team trainer when he sprained his ankle. as bad as it was (and i know how bad they can be) the ONLY reason he was able to play the following week was because of the painkillers. they worked so well, not only for the ankle, but all the bumps and bruises incurred on other parts of his body, that he just figured what the heck. one of the reasons he admitted he had a problem was because he couldnt get his hands on them anymore. he was asking teammates for theirs (john jurkevic) and they finally started refusing to give him what he "needed."
there's 2 big parts to a drug addiction. stopping, and not giving in to the withdrawals. the best way to avoid these, is to use only what is necessary, and only long enough for it to do its job.
i have no problem with someone taking penicillin for its intended use
Here's my point: you're essentially dictating how and how often people use drugs. You can't do that. With drugs, you can either have the door open, or the door closed, because drugs are everywhere and they're in everything, including your food, so eventually you're going to have to dicate food, too.
Why can someone bungee jump for the thrill of excitement, but can't snort cocaine for the rush?
Yes, most drugs have negative side effects, but if that is what someone wants to put in their body, who should stop them? Drugs aren't the only unhealthy things people put in their body; if you take a look at peoples' diets, that would be a good place to start dictating. Whether it's the five hot dogs and three sodas they drink at the ballpark, the three bowls of Ramen noodles they eat in their dorms, peoples' diets are the main problem for unhealthiness in this country -- not drugs.
As for marijuana, no one has actually said it, but I feel it's been implied -- no, marijuana is not chemically addictive. Depending on the person, it may be physically addictive, as in everytime one feels depressed, he or she will smoke a joint. Marijuana is much less harmful than cigarettes, but because cigarettes are controlled by a vast American industry, it's allowed to exist and poison Americans daily. When marijuana can be cheaply mass produced in America by one of the companies pulling Congress' strings, you'll see it legalized.
the reason drugs arent the main problem for people's problems presently is simple. THEY'RE ILLEGAL, or they're given by prescription. the ones that arent, are still intended for specific illness or physical aches and pains. if you legalize cocaine, people who are currently trying to use it in secrecy are going to figure they can snort as much as they can fit in their nostrils. and i think we all know what will happen. drugs shouldnt be intended to "take the edge off" when a person is stressing out or emotionally upset.
are you saying that all drugs should be legalized, with absolutely no regard to what people will use them for? meaning we shouldnt need to get a prescription for anything? another reason drugs require a prescription is because serious problems can occur when taken in combination with others.
and if there is nothing wrong with taking whatever whenever, then why are there so many cases of accidental overdose? or even suicide as a result of swallowing a full bottle of sleeping pills? there HAS to be a reasonable standard as to how much, of what, and for how long drugs should be used.
call me crazy, but if all drugs become legal, with absolutely noone watching out for us, they could easily be what ultimately ends humanity as we know it. sure, it would take a while, but compared to how much time has passed already (millions of years) 50 or 100 more isnt really that long. and please dont tell me that we shouldnt worry about that because the majority of us will be gone by then.
I love it, everytime I talk to someone about legalizing drugs, they claim the world will turn to chaos. Guns are legal (limited, but legal) and people can and do use those guns to shoot each other, and yet, our population continues to increase. That's because killing is illegal; with drug legalization, interfering with others' tort rights will still be against the law.
Most drug use is done because it's illegal. Kids start using drugs because it's illegal, and it's cool to be a rebel when you're in high school. Did you read my article on drug legalization?
Prohibition historically has done more harm than good: Homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter.
Then you have the money saved from not arresting and maintaining in a jail cell otherwise peaceful drug offenders, and that solves your overcrowded jails problem.
When you get right down to it, you can really have either limits on all drugs linearly and equally, or no limits at all.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on April 6th at 7:40 PM.
so now you're saying if we legalize all drugs, people will stop using them? there's still ALOT of abuse of prescription drugs, and those are legal. there's abuse of over-the-counter drugs, they're obviously legal.
i get your point about the guns...kinda...but you also solidified a point i've been making all along. gun use/ownership is LIMITED. not just anyone can go out and buy 1 for any reason these days. criminals cant buy one, although i realize they tend to get their hands on them too often anyway. i gaurantee you there would be a real mess if all drugs were legalized. another thing you have to remember about guns is, they've pretty much always been legal. if it wasnt for the limitations that have been put on them in the last 100 years, every kid would be walking to school wearing 1 on their hip. well, the ones that havent already been shot by another kid showing off.
Drugs should be legal to use as long as they don't interfere with the tort rights of others. Tort law, in case you didn't know, gives people the right to be free from bodily harm, the right to run a business, the right to have and maintain property, and the right to a healthy reputation.
Drug use starts, usually, in adolescence, because it's the cool thing to do. You've seen all of the anti-drug commercials, "Don't give in to peer pressure," or "sports: my anti-drug" and stuff like that. If these kids didn't think it was cool to rebel, drugs wouldn't be used and abused the way they are now. It's like I said in RaeRae34's blog about the Duke rape scandal: if the taboo spin was taken off of sex, you wouldn't see so many sex crimes. By not allowing someone to do something, you're going to make it psychologically satisfying for them to break the rules.
If drugs are legal, people aren't going to call each other up and say, "You want to smoke a blunt?" Because it would be legal, that would be like calling someone up now and asking, "You want to eat a bag of potato chips?" It's not illegal; it's normal.
There should be limitations, but only to protect the rights of others. No one should have any say over what someone does with his body.
with the number of people, especially kids, already using drugs regularly, combined with the number of people who would do them if they were legalized, how can you possibly believe it wouldnt become an epidemic? basically the only reason most kids dont give in to trying them is because it is illegal. either their parents or the law puts just enough fear into them to keep them from starting. you erase the fear, there's nothing stopping them from getting so high they hurt someone, or kill themselves. how many would have to die or get seriously hurt before you realize its not a problem?
SoCal, Tophatal calling back. Thanks for the line about the episode concerning Grey's Anatomy. I am total agreement with on the steroids situation. I think it's even a bigger farce now going on, concerning the latest investigation. Bearing in mind that it's being lead by a director of the League's own franchises. How can we have an impartial investigation? Wouldn't it have been in the best interests of the League to have hired some big law firm to conduct the investigation? There again, we're dealing with the frailties of Bud Selig. A man who to this day still tries to convince the public that he was unaware that there was steroids and other known drugs were being used in the sport.
"There should be limitations, but only to protect the rights of others. No one should have any say over what someone does with his body."....Ultra
there are already limitations on prescription drugs, yet people become addicted to them every day, including sleep aides, as you just mentioned. so legalizing, then limiting, drugs such as cocaine, LSD, etc, wont work, you as much as admitted it. alcohol is legalized, and people abuse that every day, and it doesnt just affect them personally when the get behind the wheel, cross the center line and hit someone head on.
the same thing is happening with cocaine right now, and its illegal. legalizing it will only give people the idea that they can snort as much as possible, and there will be no repercussions for their actions while they're high.
if people already abuse legalized, yet limited, prescription drugs, they're going to do the same with all the others you think should be legalized.
"If drugs are legal, people aren't going to call each other up and say, "You want to smoke a blunt?" Because it would be legal, that would be like calling someone up now and asking, "You want to eat a bag of potato chips?" It's not illegal, it's normal." Ultra
if you truly believe this statement, then i believe you're already smoking or snorting some of this stuff.
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Ultra here. If drugs were legal (but controlled like alcohol) our war on drugs would be all but won. Lets look at pot for example. The DEA says that pot leads to other drugs like coke, heroin, etc. Well if pot were legal, people wouldn't be exposed to the other drugs the dealer is selling. So you go to your pot dealer and he offers you coke or something else besides. Yet if pot were legal that wouldnt happen. The so called "graduation rate" has slowed down considerably in Amsterdam where pot is legal. Anyway people are going to do drugs whether they're illegal or not. Whats our answer? Put the users in jail and throw away the key. Not a good answer. Legalize them and control their sale and we'll have alot less inmates/ruined lives and alot less crime. Throwing users in jail for 20 yrs isn't the answer.
Johnny we normally agree on most political things but I do not agree with legalizing drugs. Is graduation rates going downa good thing? Am I missing something? Narcotics are bad and legalizing them would just ruin peoples lives in a legal way. People who go to legal methadone clinics don't stop using, they just get clean needles. Their lives are forever messed up. If you are talking about legalizing only pot, that is up for debate and we could spin statistics all day long. Somewhere a line has to be drawn between what is legal and what is not.
Great read, and thanks for the link! If you are interested in learning more about greenies, I can help. I can tell you this much, not too many have a clue about them. These are not your average no-doze. These are nothing you can even find on the average downtown corner. Greenies are made of the strongest, and one of the most dangerous amphetamines on the market. I have personally seen HUGE bags of them in MLB locker rooms. They are sometimes taken by ball players while slamming a beer, and handed out like candy. If people want to think that these ball players are worked so hard, and that they may need them for a double header, or a day game after a night game, they are blinded by ignorance. (And they use them for every game anyway.) I think that it is just as big of a problem as steroids, maybe even worse. Yes, they were not banned by MLB for years, but they were in the country that they played in. It makes me sick to think that some of these men are signing autographs to kids that look up to them, while they are hopped up on speed. I am sad that I was once a huge baseball fan, but had peaked behind the curtain to find nothing but ugliness. But to each there own. I do not have a problem with bb fans, and I am well aware that for every bad seed in the league there are 2 great personalities in the sport. But I for one will not be taking any kids to any ballparks in the near future. It is not anything close to my grandfathers game anymore. Maybe it never was, who knows? I don’t care anymore
Last night as I watched ESPN Outside of the Lines, everything I have said about baseball, steroids, and cheating came full circle.
Cheating has been a part of baseball since its inception.
