Amerika

Off Topic
161

[quote]rainjack wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:

Simplified: Eating bad foods, drinking excessively (too much) and smoking are people’s own stupid choices. I blame the people making those choices, not the people supplying the bad choices.

Yet you want the government to protect us from these bad choices.

Please see my previous post about Natural Selection. [/quote]

Fuck me. You are one slow cunt. Read the fucking sentence. I blame the people making those choices (IE: The dumb cunts filling their arteries with fatty foods, poisoning their liver, and filling their lungs with chemicals). Not those supplying them (Fast food outlets, Alcohol Companies and Cigarette companies.

I’m just saying people are stupid with the above choices, why would you introduce something like AAS to the common man? Or are you proposing something different to that? Because if it was widely available, I could see many a yokel getting into AAS.

162

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Probably belongs as a thread in PWI, but I’ll ask anyway:

Do you think there should be some sort of intelligence or knowledge test voters must pass before being allowed to vote?

I really haven’t considered the topic that, much, but my initial response is that having people be required to actually know the various platforms of everyone running sure beats out letting people vote for someone “because he believes in the bible” or “because he’s black”. Then again, I’m sure the issue goes far deeper than than.

Just a thought, wanted your opinion.[/quote]

It would be a great benchmark but I’ve known some borderline retards that couldn’t write a sentence but they knew their shit when it came to local politics. America has it right, if you want to vote - then vote. If you don’t - then don’t.

I couldn’t believe it in Australia how they all have to vote. Most of the people go in and get their name ticked off the list then post a donkey vote.

163

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Haven’t you learned? He’s smarter than most of us wrt steroids
[/quote]
I’m not smarter than all of you regarding AAS, but I would say it’s a fair chance I’ve got most of you covered.

I didn’t say they were evil or stupid. You are stupid as you have jumped to the conclusion from what I wrote. Prof X said that countries with less regulation had lower something or other… I wanted to know where he got his “facts” from and which countries he was talking about. Countries with less regarding AAS are Mexico & Thailand for 2 off the top of my head. Their records would no doubt be worse than the US, UK or the like. I’m getting pretty sick and tired of spelling all this out for you guys.

But keep on jumping to conclusions, it only strengthens the point that I am dealing with people of low intelligence.

When have I said that I want a Nanny Govt. I’ve just stated that I don’t think deregulation of AAS is a good idea.

Give me a list of reasons why it is and I might change my mind. I’m not married to my opinion here and if you guys could actually put forward some logical points I might actually have something to change my mind.

164

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

You have basically shredded this nitwit’s endless pages of bullshit. Good job!

[/quote]

Closing statement for tonight.

I am not against fast food, alcohol or cigarettes. They are people’s choices and there are plenty of warnings for people when they over indulge in all of them.

I am still unsure of why we would want AAS deregulated.

My view is that there has not been enough long term study on the issue and I don’t see how it really benefits people to have it readily available at a doctors discretion! I think we are too trigger happy on the prozacs, ritalin and the like. Why bring another range of products that doctors can hand out to people that do not need them? Medication is not always the answer.

That is what I am standing by at the moment. Give me some reasons why and I might start to change my mind.

But before you jump to conclusions about my views and beliefs. Re read my statement above.

165

I love weed.

166

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You have basically shredded this nitwit’s endless pages of bullshit. Good job!

Closing statement for tonight.

I am not against fast food, alcohol or cigarettes. They are people’s choices and there are plenty of warnings for people when they over indulge in all of them.

I am still unsure of why we would want AAS deregulated.
[/quote]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that, when used in moderation, androgens are no worse than fast food, alcohol, or cigarettes but somehow, my personal choice to take them is a legal matter rather than a personal one as it is with these other substances. Of the four, steroids (and small amounts of alcohol, but thats beside the point) are the best for an individual’s health, regardless of the level of usage.

Are you honestly completely ok with the idea of some person in Washington legislating your own personal behavior? Would you be fine with the government deciding what sorts of food you could eat and then also notifying you that you could only legally sleep with women born on even numbered days? How about your sleep patterns? Im sure someone in DC could dig up a study from the 50’s stating that 4 hours is all you need and then pass a law stating that 4 hours of sleep per day is the legal limit.

The idiots with the excessive and destructive personalities are not going to be stopped by laws. To think that drug laws stop junkies from becoming junkies is akin to the idea that gun control laws keep criminals from getting guns. If someone wants to destroy themselves, then let them and let their family and friends worry about stopping them. Thats not the governments place.

I have a feeling that a lot of the reason that there are laws on personal morality is because we, as a country, are too lazy to deal with the problems in our own families and want the government to fix our self-destructive uncle Joe’s. This is why you always hear weepy stories from parents of kids who died from drug use.

I sympathize with them and cannot imagine the pain of losing a child, but it still makes you wonder-where the hell were the parents and why werent they parenting instead of letting their children destroy themselves?

167

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
Fuck. It is simple. Less than 1% of the weight lifting population could have the discipline to sit down and read through the Anabolics Review or other AAS reference guide and understand it. Transfer that figure into the general population and you’ve got a drop of salt in the ocean. Why deregulate something that so few people have a good understanding in. Also, most doctors know fuck all about AAS other than the basics. So who would educate the future users. I know plenty of people who would happily get into AAS if it was readily available and they don’t even have the self discipline to monitor their own diet properly.

We live in a world where pills and etc are the answer for everything. When a kids a fuck up, they put them on Ritalin. If a guys just soft in the head, lets give him some prozac. So what’s next? When a guy is a little lethargic, give him a shot of test!

One simple question: What is there to gain by deregulating AAS? I’m just trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Put forward a proposed plan as to how it could be done and what would be gained by it. I’m open minded and will admit when I see a good idea. This thread has proved nothing to me yet.
[/quote]

No I understand what you’re saying. You’re just wrong. And I’m not saying this because I’m a steroid junkie. I’m just using the same position I have on all drugs. They should all be legalized. Yes, crack and herion, etc. All of them.

By criminalizing them you create this sort of dangerous environment that is associated with those drugs atm. Shit, I could write a whole paper on it. Basically it has to do with the elasticity of demand for those products (and elasticity of supply to a large degree). Don’t forget all the money that is wasted by the government not only in money spent on police, but court, other administration, and jails.

I can expand if you want, but here’s what’s wrong with your ignorance argument: The product being illegal only exacerbates the ignorance problem. Much like with the devil weed, if you look for information you will likely find a good bit that simply says it will kill you. If this was a legal good there wouldn’t be such silly propaganda and the media wouldn’t have any reason to push such misinformation.

I’m sure there are lots of good sites that you can learn proper use on, but a lot of people are probably relying on their homeboy to tell them what to do and homeboi doesn’t know any better than them. Why doesn’t he know any better? Because the information isn’t easy enough to find.

168

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:

No I understand what you’re saying. You’re just wrong. And I’m not saying this because I’m a steroid junkie. I’m just using the same position I have on all drugs. They should all be legalized. Yes, crack and herion, etc. All of them.

By criminalizing them you create this sort of dangerous environment that is associated with those drugs atm. Shit, I could write a whole paper on it. Basically it has to do with the elasticity of demand for those products (and elasticity of supply to a large degree). Don’t forget all the money that is wasted by the government not only in money spent on police, but court, other administration, and jails.

I can expand if you want, but here’s what’s wrong with your ignorance argument: The product being illegal only exacerbates the ignorance problem. Much like with the devil weed, if you look for information you will likely find a good bit that simply says it will kill you. If this was a legal good there wouldn’t be such silly propaganda and the media wouldn’t have any reason to push such misinformation.

I’m sure there are lots of good sites that you can learn proper use on, but a lot of people are probably relying on their homeboy to tell them what to do and homeboi doesn’t know any better than them. Why doesn’t he know any better? Because the information isn’t easy enough to find.[/quote]

I don’t think legalization would solve the problem of disinformation at all. In fact, it would likely feed it by way of advertising and misrepresentation. For example, when cocaine was legal (at least quasi-legal) around the turn of the century, you had products such as “coca-cola”. Further, you had top intellectuals (Freud) defending and even promoting the usage of these substances.

I can rationalize the importance of moderation and self-awareness that Proffesor X has mentioned, but to come up with a ridiculous claim that legalization would solve current “misinformation” is bullshit. Further, the actual economic argument revolves more around a created market and removal of tax collection used for the war on drugs.

There will always be propoganda regardless of what the item is. For reasons of propoganda, there are members of this site that wouldn’t even consider using other supplements than Biotest. Further, consider Tobacco usage. While nicotine has shown positive attributes (though arguably neglible), there is a constant propaganda campaign labeling the tobacco industry as a whole as a bunch of evil tyrants.

There is disinformation, confusion, lack of credibility on all sides of almost all consumer items. Legalization has very little to do with this.

169

[quote]dantheman wrote:
I don’t think legalization would solve the problem of disinformation at all. In fact, it would likely feed it by way of advertising and misrepresentation. For example, when cocaine was legal (at least quasi-legal) around the turn of the century, you had products such as “coca-cola”. Further, you had top intellectuals (Freud) defending and even promoting the usage of these substances.
[/quote]

You’re referencing a time when misinformation was more prevalent in part because consumers were less savvy. This is a poor analogy because the flow of information is much freer today. You are also looking at coca-cola and Freud in a biased light because you grew up in a culture that condemned cocaine use. I would need to know exactly what Freud was promoting it for, but perhaps you only believe there is no legitimate use (in moderation) because of the way you were raised.

170

If Consumers are now “more savvy” than why do they make the choices that Proffesor X is ranting about…?

171

I’m not sure why you decided to use the phrase “actual economic argument.” Do you find a problem with what I said earlier in that regard?

172

[quote]dantheman wrote:
If Consumers are now “more savvy” than why do they make the choices that Proffesor X is ranting about…?[/quote]

I’ve already answered that.

173

Also, more savvy doesn’t mean they have perfect information. There’s a lot of misinformation by our government and media that reflects an unwillingness to learn because of preconceived ideas that the public has.

More savvy means more discerning, which they are. You may say they aren’t in regard to drugs, but why are they? Because there is so much disinformation out there from sources that people generally trust.

174

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
I’m not sure why you decided to use the phrase “actual economic argument.” Do you find a problem with what I said earlier in that regard?[/quote]

You make it seem like government spending is a problem…
It is more important (as I subscribe to a neo-Keynesian ideology) that, while the consumer have choices and money to spend, it is as important for the government to spend money by way of creating jobs, security and infrastructure.

Further, an important thing to note, is the fear of Cocaine that I supposedly only get from the laws against is irrational on two counts. One, Freud, late in his life attempted to recind all his work in the “Cocaine Papers” after losing a close friend to a myochardial infarcation caused by the substance. Two, it is pretty obvious there is very little value derived from the substance that would warrant any initial use of it…

175

I honestly think the consumer is no more savvy now than they were a century ago.

Yes, I will grant that there is a hell of a lot more information on all the products used. But lets not get confused.

Lawyers, as seen in the OJ Simpson trial, use this exact model in courts all the time. The best way to get someone to buy into something, is to bury them in information, regardless of the truth.

176

[quote]dantheman wrote:
You make it seem like government spending is a problem…
It is more important (as I subscribe to a neo-Keynesian ideology) that, while the consumer have choices and money to spend, it is as important for the government to spend money by way of creating jobs, security and infrastructure.
[/quote]

I never said the government shouldn’t spend any money? You have to look at the cost and benefits of what you spend money on. You’re trying to use an economic argument to argue against something that economics as a discipline has agreed with me on? Really?

[quote]
Further, an important thing to note, is the fear of Cocaine that I supposedly only get from the laws against is irrational on two counts. One, Freud, late in his life attempted to recind all his work in the “Cocaine Papers” after losing a close friend to a myochardial infarcation caused by the substance. Two, it is pretty obvious there is very little value derived from the substance that would warrant any initial use of it…[/quote]

One, lots of people have irrational emotional reactions like that when they lose someone they love. Lots of mothers of dead soldiers would probably tell you how evil the armed forces are. Who is to say that his friend was using the substance responsibly in the first place? How much did they really know about this new thing?

Two, it’s pretty obvious to who? Someone who isn’t open-minded enough to consider the benefits in the first place? OK.

177

[quote]dantheman wrote:
I honestly think the consumer is no more savvy now than they were a century ago.

Yes, I will grant that there is a hell of a lot more information on all the products used. But lets not get confused.

Lawyers, as seen in the OJ Simpson trial, use this exact model in courts all the time. The best way to get someone to buy into something, is to bury them in information, regardless of the truth. [/quote]

Why do you not think they are more savvy? That they are unable to use the information presented to them?

The court argument is not a good analogy because the jury is in a vacuum of information.

178

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Two, it is pretty obvious there is very little value derived from the substance that would warrant any initial use of it…
[/quote]

I believe in some South American countries the workers will chew coca leaves much as someone in the US would drink coffee.

Notice the part where they make tea with it.

179

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:

The idiots with the excessive and destructive personalities are not going to be stopped by laws. To think that drug laws stop junkies from becoming junkies is akin to the idea that gun control laws keep criminals from getting guns. If someone wants to destroy themselves, then let them and let their family and friends worry about stopping them. Thats not the governments place.

[/quote]

Perfectly said.

I’ve noticed that when many Americans live overseas, they become infected with the worship of government as an ‘end all be all’ solution to every problem. I hadn’t realized that the infection had spread to Oz. Bummer…

180

[quote]dantheman wrote:
Two, it is pretty obvious there is very little value derived from the substance that would warrant any initial use of it…[/quote]

Well, cocaine was the first local anesthetic used in many medical settings from GP’s to dentists. Because of its negative stigma, there will doubtfully be any further looks into any other possible benefits…which is the greatest damage the “government save me!” perspective brings. It causes a massive decrease in scientific research aside from that which is greatly biased and therefore more likely to get grants from sources with agendas.

That means, unlike Carver’s genius assault on the peanut, there will be far less possible uses for these hot topic substances that are being banned based on nothing but exaggeration and scare tactics.