Having a discussion with a peer yesterday, we started discussing Lance Armstrong. I told her I thought he shouldn't have cheated and lied about it, but morally there's nothing wrong with an individual wanting to take steroids or any other drugs since it only affects his well being and hence there should be nothing illegal about it. I suggested that perhaps bicyclists as well as athletes in other sports ought to create a doping category, of sorts, where they can take any substance they'd like to enhance performance and then compete against one another on a superhigh level.
She didn't agree and said that since a professional wrestler years ago killed his family due to roid rage that steroids and other drugs that essentially take over a person's personality should be illegal because it can indeed affect other people, as in the case she mentioned. She brought up an interesting perspective. Of course, I could've brought up alcohol, car misfunctions and all other sorts of things that seemingly overpower clear judgment (although, of course, substances that actually cause people to kill is an extreme case to prove, but giving her the benefit of the doubt...) but I wanted to address her inquiry later today and, instead of bringing up other drugs and doing the, "Well, do you believe alcohol/guns/electricity should be outlawed?" I thought I would address steroids in particular.
Anybody care to share their thoughts?
Armstrong was not wrong or being immoral to lie (It is not even illegal, didn’t Obama promise to close Gitmo? Didn’t Bush promise to have a more humble foreign policy without “Nation Building”?) about his behavior in France as the immoral agency that was investigating him for over 7 years was funded by money created by the immoral US Federal and for whatever its worth has no basis in the Constitution and for whatever its worth has no jurisdiction in France. The important parts of the reality here are that this happened in FRANCE under the auspices of the cycling association whatever its name is.
The only immoral thing Armstrong did was to violate the rules of the cycling association, assuming blood doping was against its rules when Armstrong did it.
About steroids affecting other people, Lance Armstrong was not to my knowledge using steroids nor was he accused of such. He was accused and supposedly admitted to the behavior of “Blood Doping”. So all the legislation that supposedly protects us against roidrage could not protect us against blood doping rage (Assuming it exists).
Onto prohibition, there is a mountain of material on this website on the war on drugs and other prohibited or in the case of steroids regulated substances. The fact is that although the wrestler faced prohibition the person managed to acquire the substances anyway. Then without proper medical advice, the substance was prohibited for use in the way the wrestler wanted, the person supposedly went on a steroid induce rage and killed people. So where does that leave everyone not killed? It leaves them with this expensive war on drugs that enforces monopolies on providing worse substances (Look at the recent batch of mass murders who all had changes to their medication doses prior to their actions.) all the while leaving in its wake a pile of destroyed liberties not limited to but including Habeas Corpus, the 4th Amendment, etc.
All cyclists dope. It's a dope sport.
But that is not the issue the way I see it. The issue is that these athletes are extremely competitive people and put so much time and effort into their profession that they will always give into the incentive to cheat if they think others are doing it. The only way I see out of this is for the cycling association to not have athletes make any pledges that they will not blood dope then either allow it or enforce the ban with testing. And if the testing is unreliable then allow that behavior until someone developes a more reliable test.
There are so many grey areas anyway. What about competitors who have undergone sex change? Or are treating diseases? Once upon a time drinking water during competition was defined as doping! It seems impossible to sort out who is competing "clean" and who isn't...I don't honestly see why they have those rules. If you ran the whole race and you crossed the finish line first, congratulations guy, in my opinion you won. Not my business what heart-killing poison you're taking in order to make it happen. And if you go and kill your family, then I'll consider you a criminal-but not before.
thetabularasa's peer:essentially take over a person's personality should be illegal
Fallacy because obviously the person's personality caused him to use drugs. The drugs didn't take over his personality, because the drug use is a result of his personality. Also, the principle that something which has a strong influence on someone's personality should be illegal is frightening and intellectually bankrupt.
The funny thing is that any top 40 cyclist are into something, they are an extremely competitive bunch.
Thank you all for contributing. I certainly agree with each of you.
In respect to her rebuttal, she's making the case that if something that one person does is harmful to another person (granted that other person did not provoke the aggressor), then that action should be illegal. Perhaps if there was a way to prove that steroids caused the "wrestler" to kill his family (as she's banking on), let's say that link was proved. Then could you even say "We should outlaw steroids!"?
Perhaps the quickest way to address this is to let her know that prohibition does not eliminate the substance. Then she will say that it will at least limit it, and a limited amount of substances that cause roid rage is better than having it plentifully.
I was thinking from the wife's perspective, too. The wife doesn't have to stay with him. The offspring is another matter altogether, but nothing's forcing the wife to stay with the drug-user, unless he himself is enslaving her, which I would most definitely consider immoral and thus ought to be illegal.
Anyhow, she's creating a slippery slope by saying since the man who did steroids (A) led to his murdering his family (B) then everyone who does steroids will inevitably kill their families (C) or at least more of a negative substance will result in worse effects (also C). But the way I'm approaching this is even giving her the benefit of the doubt, say people taking steroids almost inevitably leads them to kill their families (which obviously it doesn't), is there a way to refute her argument?
I think I may have provided myself with the solution, although I might be overgeneralizing here, if you all wouldn't mind helping. Can I validly state the following?:
Person A took steroids and killed his family.
Person B took steroids and did not kill his family.
Therefore, there is no direct cause between taking steroids and killing one's family because in at least one case one person took the steroids and did not kill his family.
Case closed?
thetabularasa: Thank you all for contributing. I certainly agree with each of you. In respect to her rebuttal, she's making the case that if something that one person does is harmful to another person (granted that other person did not provoke the aggressor), then that action should be illegal. Perhaps if there was a way to prove that steroids caused the "wrestler" to kill his family (as she's banking on), let's say that link was proved. Then could you even say "We should outlaw steroids!"? Perhaps the quickest way to address this is to let her know that prohibition does not eliminate the substance. Then she will say that it will at least limit it, and a limited amount of substances that cause roid rage is better than having it plentifully. I was thinking from the wife's perspective, too. The wife doesn't have to stay with him. The offspring is another matter altogether, but nothing's forcing the wife to stay with the drug-user, unless he himself is enslaving her, which I would most definitely consider immoral and thus ought to be illegal. Anyhow, she's creating a slippery slope by saying since the man who did steroids (A) led to his murdering his family (B) then everyone who does steroids will inevitably kill their families (C) or at least more of a negative substance will result in worse effects (also C). But the way I'm approaching this is even giving her the benefit of the doubt, say people taking steroids almost inevitably leads them to kill their families (which obviously it doesn't), is there a way to refute her argument? I think I may have provided myself with the solution, although I might be overgeneralizing here, if you all wouldn't mind helping. Can I validly state the following?: Person A took steroids and killed his family. Person B took steroids and did not kill his family. Therefore, there is no direct cause between taking steroids and killing one's family because in at least one case one person took the steroids and did not kill his family. Case closed?
ps I've used this reasoning with people saying we should outlaw video games. I ask them, if video games cause violence, why are there so many non-violent video game users? Don't the non-violent ones prove there is no direct link between video games and violence? If there were a direct link, logically speaking, players of violent video games would inevitably resort to violence, which the majority clearly do not!
Roidrage is bullshit, btw.
It's not cheating if everyone does it. I don't believe a sportsman may cheat against a judge appointed by the governing buerocracy of the sport. He may only cheat against his competitors. But if they use dope themselves they're estopped from complaining, so there is no issue. This is the extent of my argument, and of my thoughts on the affair.
Even if there was a direct cause, it's the killing that's wrong, not the steroid use. You can only call the actual aggression the crime.
Cheating is still an issue for the individual even if everyone does it. The issue is that being a sportsman is good for the guy who cycles for his family but tends to get pushed down the list of priorities when encountering a bunch cheaters among your competitors when there are millions of dollars and fame on the line for the winner.
@thetabularasa
Clearly you're wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt, but don't discount killing her argument at the root. Her root premise is "it's better to implement a workaround (the violence of law) to reduce the chances for potential symptoms of a problem, instead of confront the problem working to solve it." Send a double hitter, of course, by pointing out the irony of her trying to work around potential violence (rage induced violence) by instituting actual violence (law).
And bring it home by pointing out that steroids aren't illegal! They aren't even remotely illegal, in fact there's a huge, legal, steroid industry. They're just illegal if you don't have government permission, and that circles back to the problem of trying to work around potential violence by instituting actual violence.
For extra credit, point out the painfully obvious: making steroids illegal doesn't make them unavailable. It just creates corroption in the legal system, and compounds violence by creating a black market where might makes right is the only rule.
Vitor: Roidrage is bullshit, btw.
So do you believe there is no way drugs could possibly alter your chemical makeup and force you to be more aggresive or more passive?