On Mar 21, 2007, at 5:15 PM, clint michels wrote:

> not to disagree with you view, but you might want to look at it
> like this. why would the fact that someone uses drugs effect how
> you view the person?? if a person takes drugs the choice is theirs.
> if a person( well refer to as person-x in this post) is willing to
> lose 20 years off their life in the persuit of a ultimate goal i
> dont think a critic should complain.
If someone wants to be able to strut up and down the beach with huge
muscles, and he has to take steroids to do so, I can be a libertarian
to some extent. Let him so that. However, I would not hold that
person in very high esteem, compared to a person who works out
intelligently and with intensity, but does not get the same results
as the steroid user.

> if a 3rd party thinks its cheating that person-x is willing to take
> any path possible to achieve a dream, would person-x lead a more
> fullfilled life in the event that they dont achieve that goal w-out?
In my opinion, you are not living a fulfilling life when you have to
be something you are not.

> it could also be viewed unfair that a person is born with superior
> genetics.
Of course, this is the next stage of performance enhancing. I think
we will see, maybe in my lifetime, (about to turn 60) genetic
enhancements. There is a genetic biologist at Princeton University
that I hear speak many years ago. He feels that some day we will have
to types of humans. The enhanced and the natural, and the genetically
enhanced would be the outstanding musicians, athletes, etc. Steroids
will look like candy if that scenario becomes reality.


> a person needs to make do with what they were born with, and
> supplementing drugs might just give them the advantage they need.
> if in the pursuit of that goal they defeat a person that wasnt
> willing to take drugs...it could be considered the defeated person
> wasnt willing to do everything possible to obtain their dream.

But that is just it. The other person should not have to endanger
their health by playing with their endocrine system.

If our medical community could find a way to safely take steroids,
then I might look at it in a different way, but that is not the case
now.





> i dont take
> any illegal substances but i do think the government shouldnt be
> able to tell someone what they can and cant take. they can
> certainly " educate the public" but the fact that cigarettes and
> alcohol are legal shows how ignorant the government is. they only
> legalize things they can make money off of. ( steroids cant even
> touch how deadly alcohol and tobacco are)
To be honest, I could agree with reducing the legal penalty for some
drugs like marijuana. I never smoked it and do not encourage anyone
to use it, but from a practical point of view, our war on drugs is
not working. We spend billions of dollars on drugs like marijuana
with no results. According to what I have read, marijuana is a bigger
crop than any thing else that we grow in America. I was a high school
teacher for 35 years. I would ask the students, “if I gave you one
period in school to find dope, how many of you could do it?” You can
image how many hands went up, and I was working at a “good” school.
So, yes I could be a libertarian in some cases. If you want to smoke
dope that is your decision. Smoking dope does not give you an unfair
advantage over someone else.



>
> and the best part is that we get to see better entertainment when
> we watch sporting event and such spectacles.
>

I guest that is where we differ too. I was an athlete when I was
younger, and I coached football and track for 30 years. I know the
effort and determination that is needed to be a successful athlete on
any level. For me sport is not just entertainment. It is a human
drama of struggle, effort, strategy, determination, team work, and
what is best about being alive and healthy. When you put steroids
into the picture, it loses it luster, at least in my eyes.

Hank Kearns