Amerika

[FlavaDave]

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
The open minded one’s are not the problems. I work a day job with a heap of short sighted ladies aged 50+. One day I printed off a steroid ebook and left the last page of it on the printer. Did the shit hit the fan or what? It got around that I was on steroids and now if I crack the shits over anything no matter how major it is, it must be part of the steroid rage.

Truth was, I printed it off for educational purposes but they don’t understand why anyone would find steroids fascinating.

Unfortunately, these are the typical people that would strongly oppose deregulation of AAS. No real knowledge but plenty to hate.
[/quote]

Cool. They’re dying off. There is a trend toward people being more educated which in the future will play every role in the legalization of these goods. Education and free flow of information is what will turn the tide in this battle.

[quote]Your big time players will obviously keep going and make sure they’ve got more mules and guys who will take the fall but plenty of the smaller guys will disappear in my opinion.
[/quote]

Your opinion means nothing compared to cold hard economic fact. Which is what I’ve presented to you here. The little guys will be getting increased profits as well.

Remember,

Producer avoidance expenditures = supply restriction expenditures.

And within the avoidance expenditures, the cost to consumers is included which turns into profit for dealers who are not caught.

Yeah but perhaps it will sway some of the smaller scale operations to pull out. The money would be nice, but 20 years in the can might change their minds.

I’ve addressed this. They will simply realize bigger profits (the ones who don’t get caught anyway). Not to mention that you force junkies to commit bigger crimes to support their habit.

I was more saying that steroid criminilization is very different to slavery and women working. In 200 years, I would say this will be legalized and everyone will be able to enjoy the fruits of AAS but there will be more unbiased study done on it and it should prove to be of benefit to the human race if used under doctors supervision.

Why isn’t their more unbiased study done on it now? Could it be because their are two sides, both stubborn as hell who are incapable of negotiation?

I’ll look into it but all I was saying is that the public is grossly misinformed and once people have an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, it becomes very hard to sway them from that.

It’s really a great book and will give you a great deal of insight into just how possible what I’m talking about is. It’s actually nothing short of inevitable.

Not one in the same. The common theme is that Steroids can actually improve your quality of life and will be of benefit to the human race. The same cannot be said for Heroin, Ecstacy and the like.

Exactly the same from an economic perspective. They are both goods with positive social value that are in demand. By reducing demand through criminalization you create a black market where people pay inflated prices, everything I’ve said previously, etc.

You can’t be in support of steroids and against other drugs. Well you can, but that’s a whole 'nother conversation.

Look, I understand that if you went to try and push legislation through right this moment it wouldn’t get through because of simple ignorance and fear of change. It won’t always be that way though (and for good reason) and that’s all I’m trying to point out. We as a society will forever be evolving and, much to the chagrin of the older generations, fixing what was broken in the past. The good old days might as well be called the ignorant old days from a sociological perspective.

Also, it won’t take 200 years for these goods to be legal. They will be legal in my lifetime (21). Bank on it.

[FlavaDave]

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
3. What reasons would you state for making this happen? Please use facts, not “Because I wanna! Boo hoo”.
[/quote]

Do you really think that’s what I’ve been doing? I’ve given you great reasons that it should happen.

[FlavaDave]

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
3. Why should the Government tell me what I can or can’t do? Because that is their job. The Government is supposed to put down guidelines for us to live by. 1 wife maximum, pay taxes annually, don’t drive too fast, don’t kill one another and so on.
[/quote]

It’s not the Government’s job (even though they do) to make rules all willy nilly throwing caution to the wind. There are laws that improve society and those that actively harm society by wasting resources and taking our economy away from it’s equilibrium.

I’m not in favor of a free market with zero government intervention (ron paul), but there’s a big difference between the government putting laws in place that harm society and putting in regulations that pick up where the market fails.

Just so we have a baseline. Economics is not the study of money and how it’s spent per se, but it’s the study of correct distribution of limited resources (time, money, water, etc.). Money is simply a medium that is useful in measuring the value of these things (i’ll trade you $20 for a blowjob, etc.).

Sometimes the free market fails to find the equilibrium (the correct distribution of goods) and the government needs to step in, but in the case of drugs the government is actually pulling us away from the equilibrium. The government’s job should not be moral regulation.

[FlavaDave]

All in all, it’s not just that we as a society can afford to legalize these goods, but that we as a society can not afford to keep them criminalized.

[A_Dizz]

You really left your (I’m assuming very well experienced) 40 year old doctor because you think he’s less reliable than a 12 year old? When I was 12, I don’t remember anyone I knew that was my age telling the truth.

-dizzle

[De_sleeplijn]

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:
3. What reasons would you state for making this happen? Please use facts, not “Because I wanna! Boo hoo”.

Do you really think that’s what I’ve been doing? I’ve given you great reasons that it should happen.[/quote]

Nah, not you. Others have been though.

[Varqanir]

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
1 wife maximum, pay taxes annually, don’t drive too fast, don’t kill one another and so on.

[/quote]

Ah well, one out of four ain’t bad.

[De_sleeplijn]

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Cool. They’re dying off. There is a trend toward people being more educated which in the future will play every role in the legalization of these goods. Education and free flow of information is what will turn the tide in this battle.
[/quote]
In a long time it may. The information age is only helping those that want to learn. The majority of people don’t want to learn and you can put the media in that category. With the Barry Bonds stuff going on in the US, steroid users must be feeling pretty hated at the moment and misunderstood.

Your opinion means nothing compared to cold hard economic fact. Which is what I’ve presented to you here. The little guys will be getting increased profits as well.

Remember,

Producer avoidance expenditures = supply restriction expenditures.

And within the avoidance expenditures, the cost to consumers is included which turns into profit for dealers who are not caught.

Go to Asia and you’ll know about a good way to combat drugs. Anyone who uses over there must be the stupidest fucks on earth. I’d never dream of taking drugs over there where Australia and America, I’d have zero problem due to the slap on the wrist you receive.

There is a case in Indonesia where the Bali 9 are about to be sentenced. 9 Aussies who decided to take drugs to Indonesia. The sympathy levels in this country for them are zero. Australia accepts as a nation that they did the wrong thing and that they should wear the consequences. I’d love that penalty introduced in the US and Australia too rather than buckle to drug users wishes.

I think society should reward those on the right side of the law, not the wrong.

I’ve addressed this. They will simply realize bigger profits (the ones who don’t get caught anyway). Not to mention that you force junkies to commit bigger crimes to support their habit.

Well the tougher laws will start getting them off the street and into the cells.

Why isn’t their more unbiased study done on it now? Could it be because their are two sides, both stubborn as hell who are incapable of negotiation?

Well that’s my point exactly. One group doesn’t want them out there and the other does so there needs to be more studies done and until that happens keep branding steroid use a crime

It’s really a great book and will give you a great deal of insight into just how possible what I’m talking about is. It’s actually nothing short of inevitable.

Will read it.

Exactly the same from an economic perspective. They are both goods with positive social value that are in demand. By reducing demand through criminalization you create a black market where people pay inflated prices, everything I’ve said previously, etc.

Okay from an economic perspective they are the same but one is seriously detrimental to one’s health and the other is reportedly good for humans in many a biased study.

You can’t be in support of steroids and against other drugs. Well you can, but that’s a whole 'nother conversation.

Maybe not economically. But as I stated above. They are chalk and cheese in what they will do to an individuals health.

Look, I understand that if you went to try and push legislation through right this moment it wouldn’t get through because of simple ignorance and fear of change. It won’t always be that way though (and for good reason) and that’s all I’m trying to point out. We as a society will forever be evolving and, much to the chagrin of the older generations, fixing what was broken in the past. The good old days might as well be called the ignorant old days from a sociological perspective.

Also, it won’t take 200 years for these goods to be legal. They will be legal in my lifetime (21). Bank on it.

I think there will be a day where it will become legalised but it may not be in our lifetime. There’s a lot of hate for steroids at this time, and I don’t see that decreasing for a long while.

[FlavaDave]

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
In a long time it may. The information age is only helping those that want to learn. The majority of people don’t want to learn and you can put the media in that category. With the Barry Bonds stuff going on in the US, steroid users must be feeling pretty hated at the moment and misunderstood.
[/quote]

There’s a big trend towards using user submitted news (think digg.com, even though it’s full of 12 year olds) and a lot of people my age are more attached to the internet than tv. I think this is a reflection of the population getting tired of the misinformation that can happen when you rely on only one source of information.

Go to Asia and you’ll know about a good way to combat drugs. Anyone who uses over there must be the stupidest fucks on earth. I’d never dream of taking drugs over there where Australia and America, I’d have zero problem due to the slap on the wrist you receive.

There is a case in Indonesia where the Bali 9 are about to be sentenced. 9 Aussies who decided to take drugs to Indonesia. The sympathy levels in this country for them are zero. Australia accepts as a nation that they did the wrong thing and that they should wear the consequences. I’d love that penalty introduced in the US and Australia too rather than buckle to drug users wishes.

I’m unaware of what drugs laws in Asian countries are. Care to inform? If it’s draconian then there’s no chance it will be used in the US.

I think society should reward those on the right side of the law, not the wrong.

Depends. Laws are not necessarily just simply because they are laws.

Well the tougher laws will start getting them off the street and into the cells.

And someone else will always be ready to step up looking to hit it big.

Well that’s my point exactly. One group doesn’t want them out there and the other does so there needs to be more studies done and until that happens keep branding steroid use a crime

But what comes first? The chicken or the egg? As long as this research is government backed it will forever be nothing more than propaganda that supports their “side.” Same goes for steroid zealots.

Okay from an economic perspective they are the same but one is seriously detrimental to one’s health and the other is reportedly good for humans in many a biased study.

Do you place no value on recreation?

Drugs can (and are for the majority of the population) be used responsibly with basically nil in negative side effects. Steroids can be misused, which is why you are against them being legalized, but why not look at other drugs in the same way? Just because you don’t agree with the recreation that others chose to entertain themselves with doesn’t make what they are doing wrong.

Maybe not economically. But as I stated above. They are chalk and cheese in what they will do to an individuals health.

Same response as above.

Mushrooms and other strong psychadelics are experiences that rival the greatest moments in any individual’s life. There was s study where those who had experienced with psychadelics rated those experiences just as high as marriage/birth of a child/ etc. Some even rated it higher.

At any rate, if we are going to criminalize things based on what they do to your health, well then, shit. haha. Maybe deadlifts are next?

[FlavaDave]

[quote] FlavaDave
Just so we have a baseline. Economics is not the study of money and how it’s spent per se, but it’s the study of correct distribution of limited resources (time, money, water, etc.). Money is simply a medium that is useful in measuring the value of these things (i’ll trade you $20 for a blowjob, etc.).

Sometimes the free market fails to find the equilibrium (the correct distribution of goods) and the government needs to step in, but in the case of drugs the government is actually pulling us away from the equilibrium. The government’s job should not be moral regulation.
[/quote]

So, for this to mean much of anything to you I need to tell you why it’s important to keep the economy as close to it’s equilibrium point as possible.

Everything action has some opportunity cost which means that money (etc.) spent on one thing cannot be spent on anything else. So what we have to do is compare all of our choices against each other. It has to be put into context.

If the opportunity cost of an action is higher than the benefit of that action you have an inefficient level of that action (out of equilibrium). The drug war is a perfect example of this played out right in front of us.

[quote]FlavaDave
All in all, it’s not just that we as a society can afford to legalize these goods, but that we as a society can not afford to keep them criminalized.
[/quote]

The opportunity cost of the drug war is higher than the supposed benefit (which is basically never even realized and that of which is realized can be achieved through simple regulation such as it is through liquor and cigarette laws).

All the money that is spent on the war on drugs can clearly be put to better use. I don’t know exactly what it would be better put to use for, but through economic principle I do know that it can.

And this obviously affects us all as a society and personally because it’s our government.

[Stronghold]

Damn Dave.

[FlavaDave]

Don’t worry SH. I’ve secretly agreed with you before. Not when we argue. But other times.

[Professor_X]

Sylvester Stallone defends his use of GH.

Sylvester Stallone Defends HGH Use

[Joe3]

“You Sir, are worse than Hitler”

This is why the whole anti-steroids (or GH in this case) annoys the hell out of me. For personal use, who the hell has the right to say what you can and cannot take, especially when the motivating factor is simply to improve your appearance.

Tell me, who has Stallone harmed by taking GH?

[De_sleeplijn]

[quote] Joe wrote:
“You Sir, are worse than Hitler”

This is why the whole anti-steroids (or GH in this case) annoys the hell out of me. For personal use, who the hell has the right to say what you can and cannot take, especially when the motivating factor is simply to improve your appearance.

Tell me, who has Stallone harmed by taking GH?[/quote]

Are you all that fucking stupid? The Government has the right to tell us what we can and can’t take. You might not agree with it but it’s the way the country works so deal with it Princess.

And how stupid is that fuckwit Stallone with GH in Australia? Any moron would do their research before entering a country.

You may not like my views but come on, if you enter or live in a country you have to respect their laws.

To answer your question, Stallone has only hurt himself and his own personal image in Australia. Many of the ill informed over here now disapprove of his ways.

[De_sleeplijn]

Heath Ledger was found dead in his New York residence today with Drugs being sited as the contributing factor.

I feel sorry for the guy’s friends, fans and family. It is tragic to see a talented life cut short at 28 or any life for that matter.

[FlavaDave]

Irresponsible use of any drug has consequences. As grown adults we should all understand that.

All things in moderation.

I feel sorry for his 2 year old though.

[JohnnyBlaze]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sylvester Stallone defends his use of GH.

Sylvester Stallone Defends HGH Use

[/quote]

Check out what one douche wrote in the comments section:

[quote]""Gee, if I (or most Americans) got caught using Human Growth Hormone, we’d be spending a lot of time in the pen. Yes, there’s legitimate reasons for taking HGH (wasting from HIV-related illness, for example) but from those I know who HAVE to take it, it’s combined with steroids. Hmmm… another controlled substance.
Is he on steroids as well? What kind of example does that set for teens? And is there a reason, other than to beef up, to be taking either or both of them?

If all he wanted was to look beefy, there ARE plastic surgery procedures (implants) which can make the scrawniest guys look beefy. It’s not too different from the silicone implants that women in Hollywood often have, only these are put in other areas. Well, sometimes - there’s implants for thighs, calves, arms, pecs, etc. If it’s good enough for women, isn’t it good enough for him?“”[/quote]

So implants are preferable to testosterone and working out?

This mindset fucking torques me to no end.

AAAARGH! I just want to strangle whoever wrote that.

But I better not. I’ve been off cycle for 3 months but it’ll probably be blamed on roid rage. lol

[Joe3]

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
Are you all that fucking stupid? The Government has the right to tell us what we can and can’t take. You might not agree with it but it’s the way the country works so deal with it Princess.
[/quote]

Nice way to get your point across, are you by any chance a part-time hostage negotiator of middle eastern diplomat?

If I have an opinion on personal freedom that in someway makes me “fucking stupid”?

If I don’t like the way a government implements laws that restrict my personal freedoms in order to protect me from myself I will have to “deal with it Princess”.

Perhaps I am unusual in liking the government to do as little as possible to interfere in the lives of the people. Fair enough to discourage people from doing dangerous things, but adults should be responsible for their own actions.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Heath Ledger dead? Shit, that’s shocking.

Apparently it was sleeping pills that were strewn all over his apartment.

Broad generalizations the public may have, such as “it was Drugs” (with a capital D, under one large broad umbrella of chemicals) that killed him are moronic and fallacious thinking.

So for every hanging suicide, we can put “Ropes” at fault and ban ropes.

If it was a car accident, then it was “Cars” that killed the person and we should make cars illegal.

If it was death by choking, the the cause of death was “Food”, therefore all food should be banned and all humans should stop eating.