The Sanity Cruzer 11 May 2005 19:24:22 [ permanent link ]
"100% Isento De Toxinas" <homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e74ffad6.0505110626.76bfe728@posting.google.com...>
I used to be naive but I know better these days, there are no more> heroes or role models left, not in the way we used to think of them as> pure and admirable.
All I say is legalize it. Growth hormone, anabolic steroids... it's all over. The important thing is that athletes take this under true medical supervision and within cycles and limits that prevent abuse and potentially devastating side effects. Make it open, end of the story. It's always the same few scenarios that lead to athletes getting caught: (a) they're getting over an illness/injury and thus have to push the cycle to gain what they perceive to be competitive form. (b) they're ignorant and/or work with an incompetent team.
To me it makes no sense to try to stop it. It's inevitable. The day they synthezise stuff that has no side effects, it'd be silly not to take it.
pablo wrote:> All I say is legalize it. Growth hormone, anabolic steroids... it's all > over. The important thing is that athletes take this under true medical > supervision and within cycles and limits that prevent abuse and potentially > devastating side effects. Make it open, end of the story. It's always the > same few scenarios that lead to athletes getting caught: (a) they're getting > over an illness/injury and thus have to push the cycle to gain what they > perceive to be competitive form. (b) they're ignorant and/or work with an > incompetent team.>
To me it makes no sense to try to stop it. It's inevitable. The day they > synthezise stuff that has no side effects, it'd be silly not to take it.>
You can make the same argument for legalizing all drugs. I agree with you here and I'd agree with you on that too. However, there is no way we could have this. We'd empty the prisons. Police forces would drop by 70%. The DEA would be out of business and what would the goddamn politicians stir folks up about?
So the illegality is here to stay. Not that it makes sense. Not that it's good for the country, but because a million parasites need it to justify their existence.
So the illegality is here to stay. Not that it makes sense. Not that > it's good for the country, but because a million parasites need it to > justify their existence.
What do you think it says about you that you are so willing to describe law enforcement and politicians as "parasites," while drug users, pushers, and dealers are given a free pass? Where, and how, were you taught such twisted values? I know there are a lot of people* who think that all drugs should be legalized, but I'm still amazed every time I hear it.
"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:C2wge.10991$w15.1224@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
What do you think it says about you that you are so willing to describe > law enforcement and politicians as "parasites," while drug users, pushers, > and dealers are given a free pass?
I can't see where you make the connection into the second. He never mentioned that. As to the parasite thing, whoever can't see both law enforcement and politicians have their fair share of unsavory characters is naive beyond belief.
The fact is the term "drug" is quite subjective, and oddly enough often illegal drugs are those that could take market share away from well established local products that are just as noxious, yet just have a better local lobby. It doesn't make much sense that bourbon is legal while marijuana is not, medically speaking. It just makes sense because of our socialization process in the civilized world.
And the drugs you're talking about here -steroids, growth hormone- are medicines. They are merely being used without proper medical supervision, and thus without regard for potential side effects. No one gets addicted to GH or AS. People use them out of free choice. They want them. In eveyr gym across the country. So let's stop the charade - whoever wants to take 'em ought to take 'em, but under medical supervision to limit the bad side-effects. I mean, bourbon isn't made illegal because it ruins your liver, guns aren't made illegal because their owners statistically are more likely to use them to blow their own or their families' brains out (like a retired police officer just did with his family iin CA yesterday) than an intruder's? There is no logic behind it, merely lazy legacy "thinking": "this is the way we've been, this is the way we'll stay! we shall not bow to changing circumstances!" - those who do that long enough invariably become obsolete buffoons...
But to call something illegal that a very sizeable portion of the population engages in is ultimately silly. 2000 years, ago, you'd be probably saying Christianity ought to be prosecuted with death, since it was not legal under the established rules of the dominant, most advanced civilization, and the soldiers that hammered its prophet to the cross were heroes, eh? Societies never get it wrong when they cast it into a law? Whatever makes people assume that current legislation is perfect and will never need to move with the times amazes me. Drugs is one are where change is inevitable. Education is the answer, not legal punishment. The latter is simply ignorant. Just as ignorant as burning witches or many other things that used to seem right in their time.
On 11 May 2005 15:21:23 -0700, "mwhaught@excite.com" <mwhaught@gmail.com> wrote:
Arghhh!!! Mike must have emailed me as well as posted this. I replied to his email. Will try and duplicate my answer.>>
An opinion sold to me by guys who are in the athletic training biz.>BAck in the early '90s they began pointing out fighters that they were>certain were using anabolic steroids and/or HGH.
Why don't these guys in the athletic training biz blow the whistle?
If you can give me an argument as to why boxers would exempt themselves>from chemical enhancement with the millions (or tens of millions) of>dollars at stake, I'd like to hear it.
I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just disagreeing with the comments "90 and 100%" of the fighters use steroids.
The Sanity Cruzer 12 May 2005 09:38:58 [ permanent link ]
"Peter Booth" <pbooth@nocoincidences.com> wrote in message news:4282BA65.1050008@nocoincidences.com...> I'm very skeptical about the suggestion that a majority of champions use > steroids. Not because> I have a Pollyana view of the essential goodness of humanity, but that it > doesn't make obvious sense.
I think it's more of a Gomer Pyle than Pollyanna point of view. ;->
There's no guarantee that steroids are performance enhancing for boxers. > If you recall boxers as a> group were very slow to begin weight training because of concerns that it > would reduce flexibility> and slow them down. Weight training is now common, but boxers remain > conservative, (speaking in generalities.)
LOL! (I mean that literally!)
Steroids can stimulate muscle tissue repair after exercise, improve tone, > reduce fat, increase bone density,> improve general feelings of optimism and well being, increase energy and > reduce fatigue.>
But they also increase water absorption, increase muscle size wholesale, > have many unpleasant side effects,> some of which are dangerous, and they are illegal.
Yeah, boxers would never partake in any dangerous activities, let alone illegal drugs. I gotta quit reading. I'm getting dizzy.
The Sanity Cruzer 12 May 2005 09:48:48 [ permanent link ]
"pablo" <pablo.at.simply@hombre.dot.net> wrote in message news:zxyge.1575$Y81.1141@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...>
"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message > news:C2wge.10991$w15.1224@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>
What do you think it says about you that you are so willing to describe >> law enforcement and politicians as "parasites," while drug users, >> pushers, and dealers are given a free pass?
But to call something illegal that a very sizeable portion of the > population engages in is ultimately silly. 2000 years, ago, you'd be > probably saying Christianity ought to be prosecuted with death, since it > was not legal under the established rules of the dominant, most advanced > civilization, and the soldiers that hammered its prophet to the cross were > heroes, eh?
The Sanity Cruzer 12 May 2005 09:50:03 [ permanent link ]
"mwhaught@excite.com" <mwhaught@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1115863175.312553.195410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> pablo wrote:>> "Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>> news:C2wge.10991$w15.1224@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> >
...guns aren't made illegal because their owners statistically are> more>> likely to use them to blow their own or their families' brains out...>
You make some excellent points but the above is simply not even close> to being true.
How about this one: A gun owner is more likely to have his own gun used against him in the case of a home invasion than his using the gun on the perpetrator?
I'm not saying the use of steroids isn't widespread. I am saying that I don't believe it's the norm. Test results would seem to confirm this.
I don't have an objection to boxers using steroids.
If 90% of champions were using steroids I'd expect close to 90% of drug tests to come back positive. They don't.
So it's lazy thinking to just assume 90% of champions are using steroids.
The Sanity Cruzer wrote:> "Peter Booth" <pbooth@nocoincidences.com> wrote in message > news:4282BA65.1050008@nocoincidences.com...>
I'm very skeptical about the suggestion that a majority of champions use >>steroids. Not because>>I have a Pollyana view of the essential goodness of humanity, but that it >>doesn't make obvious sense.>
I think it's more of a Gomer Pyle than Pollyanna point of view. ;->>
There's no guarantee that steroids are performance enhancing for boxers. >>If you recall boxers as a>>group were very slow to begin weight training because of concerns that it >>would reduce flexibility>>and slow them down. Weight training is now common, but boxers remain >>conservative, (speaking in generalities.)>
LOL! (I mean that literally!)>
Steroids can stimulate muscle tissue repair after exercise, improve tone, >>reduce fat, increase bone density,>>improve general feelings of optimism and well being, increase energy and >>reduce fatigue.>>
But they also increase water absorption, increase muscle size wholesale, >>have many unpleasant side effects,>>some of which are dangerous, and they are illegal.>
Yeah, boxers would never partake in any dangerous activities, let alone > illegal drugs.> I gotta quit reading. I'm getting dizzy. >
"mwhaught@excite.com" <mwhaught@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1115863175.312553.195410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> pablo wrote:>> "Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>> news:C2wge.10991$w15.1224@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> >
...guns aren't made illegal because their owners statistically are> more>> likely to use them to blow their own or their families' brains out...>
You make some excellent points but the above is simply not even close> to being true.>
-mwh>
It appears he's saying that a person with a gun is more likely to shoot people than a person without a gun. You don't have to run a statistical study to come to that conclusion. Heck, I'd bet a person who drives a car is more likely to run over a oppossum than a person who doesn't drive a car. Of course, I can't back that up with a reference study.
"Peter Booth" <pbooth@nocoincidences.com> wrote in message news:428358E9.90204@nocoincidences.com...> I'm not saying the use of steroids isn't widespread.> I am saying that I don't believe it's the norm.> Test results would seem to confirm this.>
I don't have an objection to boxers using steroids.>
If 90% of champions were using steroids I'd expect close to 90%> of drug tests to come back positive. They don't.>
So it's lazy thinking to just assume 90% of champions are using steroids.>
Did you watch the baseball hearings before Congress? It was stated that 60% of high school athletes use steroids. Why is it hard to believe that at least that many professional athletes, especially in sports where strength and aggression are major factors, wouldn't use them?
Wasn't it 30 minor league baseball players that tested positive last month?
Look at the drop in home runs this year in major league baseball. Even major league players and couches are saying they suspect it's because of the tougher steroid testing. Why is Barry Bonds saying he's going to miss an entire season for an injury that will be healed with 80% of the season remaining and him so close to breaking Aaron's home run record? Could it be he knows he can't pass a steroid test?
The Sanity Cruzer 12 May 2005 21:44:00 [ permanent link ]
"Bobby Bearden" <thonn@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:nCKge.14136$eJ4.725@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Look at the drop in home runs this year in major league baseball. Even > major league players and couches are saying they suspect it's because of > the tougher steroid testing. Why is Barry Bonds saying he's going to miss > an entire season for an injury that will be healed with 80% of the season > remaining and him so close to breaking Aaron's home run record? Could it > be he knows he can't pass a steroid test?
I doubt it. How long has Bonds been under the steroid magnifying glass? And do you think he keeps having surgery as a guise? I don't think so. I don't know how long it would take Bonds' system to clean up enough to pass a steroid test (assuming he did use them), but I have to figure that it's not 6 months.
The Sanity Cruzer 12 May 2005 21:46:18 [ permanent link ]
"Bobby Bearden" <thonn@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:dqKge.14134$eJ4.9216@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Heck, I'd bet a person who drives a car is more likely to run over a > oppossum than a person who doesn't drive a car. Of course, I can't back > that up with a reference study.
I ran over an opossum once. Didn't mean to do it. It was dark and I thought it was a cat. ;->
Bobby Bearden wrote:> "mwhaught@excite.com" <mwhaught@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1115863175.312553.195410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>pablo wrote:>>>"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>>>news:C2wge.10991$w15.1224@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>>...guns aren't made illegal because their owners statistically are>>more>>>likely to use them to blow their own or their families' brains out...>>You make some excellent points but the above is simply not even close>>to being true.>> -mwh> It appears he's saying that a person with a gun is more likely to shoot > people than a person without a gun. You don't have to run a statistical > study to come to that conclusion. Heck, I'd bet a person who drives a car is > more likely to run over a oppossum than a person who doesn't drive a car. Of > course, I can't back that up with a reference study.> Bobby Bearden
I just want to clarify in this portion of the thread that none of the above words are mine, despite my name being carelessly included in the snipping. It appears that Mike Haught inadvertently left my name included when he responded to Pablo, but the substance that he is responding to is Pablo's and not mine.
pablo wrote:> "Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >>What do you think it says about you that you are so willing to describe >>law enforcement and politicians as "parasites," while drug users, pushers, >>and dealers are given a free pass?> I can't see where you make the connection into the second. He never > mentioned that.
That IS the free pass.
As to the parasite thing, whoever can't see both law > enforcement and politicians have their fair share of unsavory characters is > naive beyond belief.
I didn't say otherwise. It's the mindset he displayed that I find so appalling. There seems to be an a priori assumption that the law enforcement and politicians are "parasites" at every level - individual through collective, local through federal, where the unsavory character is the norm and the rule rather than the exception. By not even bothering to examine the drug users and pushers and dealers in what was admittedly a rather throwaway post, he certainly implied through comparison to the "parasites" that the criminals are NOT unsavory characters. He doesn't seem to discriminate in the slightest; there seems to be kneejerk assumptions about law enforcement AND about drug users.
The fact is the term "drug" is quite subjective, and oddly enough often > illegal drugs are those that could take market share away from well > established local products that are just as noxious, yet just have a better > local lobby. It doesn't make much sense that bourbon is legal while > marijuana is not, medically speaking.
I agree.
And the drugs you're talking about here -steroids, growth hormone- are > medicines.
Those aren't the drugs I was talking about, because I assume from Paul's invective that those aren't the drugs he was talking about, either. When he talks about emptying prisons, it's apparent he's moved on from steroids to pot, cocaine, etc.
Societies > never get it wrong when they cast it into a law? Whatever makes people > assume that current legislation is perfect and will never need to move with > the times amazes me.
This isn't something I suggested.
Drugs is one are where change is inevitable.
At this point, it doesn't sound like you're talking about reasonable change, but rather, apathetic resignation. Too often people speak about the first when they're really motivated by the second.
Peter Booth wrote:> I'm not saying the use of steroids isn't widespread.> I am saying that I don't believe it's the norm.> Test results would seem to confirm this.> I don't have an objection to boxers using steroids.> If 90% of champions were using steroids I'd expect close to 90%> of drug tests to come back positive. They don't.
In message <kOGdnURyIsMoFB_fRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, Paul Cassel wrote:> pablo wrote:> > All I say is legalize it. Growth hormone, anabolic steroids... it's all > > over. The important thing is that athletes take this under true medical > > supervision and within cycles and limits that prevent abuse and> potentially > > devastating side effects. Make it open, end of the story. It's always the > > same few scenarios that lead to athletes getting caught: (a) they're> getting > > over an illness/injury and thus have to push the cycle to gain what they > > perceive to be competitive form. (b) they're ignorant and/or work with an > > incompetent team.> >
To me it makes no sense to try to stop it. It's inevitable. The day they > > synthezise stuff that has no side effects, it'd be silly not to take it.> >
You can make the same argument for legalizing all drugs. I agree with > you here and I'd agree with you on that too. However, there is no way we > could have this. We'd empty the prisons. Police forces would drop by > 70%. The DEA would be out of business and what would the goddamn > politicians stir folks up about?>
So the illegality is here to stay. Not that it makes sense. Not that > it's good for the country, but because a million parasites need it to > justify their existence.
In message <428358E9.90204@nocoincidences.com>, Peter Booth wrote:> I'm not saying the use of steroids isn't widespread.> I am saying that I don't believe it's the norm.> Test results would seem to confirm this.
Here a few points why tests don't tell you so much. Tests are well known to doctors which are giving drugs to athletes. So they SHOULD know exact when they must stop using it to be OK in tests. Many kind of drugs are not illegal and/or not detectable. And there are masking drugs which are detectable but sometimes not illegal, people are "caught" with these masking drugs, these drug have one sole purpose, and that is making the use of illegal drugs! When people speak of doping or steroids often they mean ANY kind of enhancing drugs.
A official from the cycling organization who does drug tests recently said something like : ------I don't exactly know what they are using now, but I can see ALL of them are using something-------
The reporter asked why he said that, he replied, I can see that all kind of values in the blood is very different then normal, that cannot be a coincidence that all cyclists suddenly have these strange values. ( and go so much faster )
I say, most of the top athletes are using some kind of enhancing drugs.
"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:0KMge.14933$w15.11769@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> Bobby Bearden wrote:>> "mwhaught@excite.com" <mwhaught@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1115863175.312553.195410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>>pablo wrote:>>>>"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>>>>news:C2wge.10991$w15.1224@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>>>...guns aren't made illegal because their owners statistically are>>>more>>>>likely to use them to blow their own or their families' brains out...>>>You make some excellent points but the above is simply not even close>>>to being true.>>> -mwh>> It appears he's saying that a person with a gun is more likely to shoot >> people than a person without a gun. You don't have to run a statistical >> study to come to that conclusion. Heck, I'd bet a person who drives a car >> is more likely to run over a oppossum than a person who doesn't drive a >> car. Of course, I can't back that up with a reference study.>> Bobby Bearden>
I just want to clarify in this portion of the thread that none of the > above words are mine, despite my name being carelessly included in the > snipping. It appears that Mike Haught inadvertently left my name included > when he responded to Pablo, but the substance that he is responding to is > Pablo's and not mine.>
5016 wrote:> Robert Phillips wrote:>>First you'll have to define "recreational drug.">>Pie> A recreational drug is a drug that people take for fun. For the> purposes of discussion, let's limit ourselves to:
That's a little problematic definition for the list you gave, particularly when it classifies caffeine as somthing people "take for fun." I drink Mountain Dew, which has caffeine. What are we talking about? What's the "fun" we're talking about? Does this mean I "take" caffeine? Do I "take" Mountain Dew? Or is it merely a beverage one consumes? Do I drink Mountain Dew *because* of the caffeine? When joking with colleagues, the answer is yes, but in a serious discussion, the answer is no. Or is caffeine merely an ingredient in a beverage I drink for the pleasant flavor? One takes heroine, but does one similarly say that is merely a liquid one injects? So I have a big problem treating them equivalently even for purposes of discussion. If I have a physical addiction to heroin, do I take it because it's "fun," or because I have an agonizing physical addiction to the substance that causes agonizing physical ? These questions might seem impossibly abstract, but they're really not, precisely because people tend to use them as the basis for their argument. If I was to attempt to answer your question while simultaneously acknowledging how limited and insufficient the question itself is, I would say that "drugs" that have little or no detrimental effect on others through their use should remain legal. From your list, the only one that qualifies is caffeine. Nobody gets affected by my decision to drink a Mountain Dew. It doesn't impair my judgment. Even alcohol is disqualified by that definition. I have mixed feelings about whether or not alcohol should be legal, because I think history has demonstrated the human inability to consume alcohol without affecting others. On the other hand, there's a great cultural history of institutionally legalized alcohol that the effects of trying to eliminate it might very likely be worse than permitting it and regulating it. This allows some simple-minded folk to try to equate marijuana and heroine, saying that marijuana has become institutionalized as culturally permissible as well, or that heroine *could* become culturally permissible the way alcohol and tobacco did. But at some point I just have to roll my eyes, throw up my hands, and recognize the mentality I'm dealing with. Those who think that heroine and cocaine should be legal, and are relatively harmless, and that legalized personal use of cocaine would have no harmful effect on others or on society, simply aren't operating with a full perspective. You just pat them on their head, thank God they're not in charge, and get on with your life. By the way, I'm only agreeing to classify tobacco as a "drug" purely for conversational purposes.
There are plenty of others, but I don't know whether they are fun or> not.
Well, from that list, I only know whether or not two of them (alcohol and caffeine) are fun! ;)
No problem. I've done it myself. But seeing it on the screen like that just makes it easier for somebody else to glance carelessly at it and assume I wrote something I didn't. I also want reassure Mike that I know it was an accident and that I'm not accusing him (based on our past!) of misrepresenting me.
5016 wrote:> Robert Phillips wrote:>>caffeine? Do I "take" Mountain Dew? Or is it merely a beverage one>>consumes? Do I drink Mountain Dew *because* of the caffeine? When>>joking with colleagues, the answer is yes, but in a serious> Most people drink coffee because of the caffeine, I think.
Of course. What about Mountain Dew?
I have mixed feelings about whether>>or not alcohol should be legal, because I think history has demonstrated>>the human inability to consume alcohol without affecting others.> ..whereas history has shown how effectively we can outlaw alcohol?> I'm very glad that you'll never be in a position to enact your puritan> nation. Frankly, for all the damage that alcohol causes, the joy that> it bringeth outweigheth the harm one hundredfold.
It's unfortunate that you chose the above moment to interrupt with your response. The sentence that follows my portion above fairly clearly indicates that the evils of prohibition "very likely" (the words I used) outweigh the benefits of banning it. I'm not sure why you wouldn't respond to those two portions together, rather than interrupting to address the first bombshell sentence stripped of the qualifier afterwards.
Marijuana is culturally acceptable in most parts of Western society> now.
I'll have to disagree. I wouldn't equate thoughts of decriminalization with "culturally acceptable." I'd guess that parents who might vote for decriminalization or even legalization would not want their own children to use it. That latter standard is, to me, more representative of people's true feelings than some abstract and hypothetical question of whether to legalize something they didn't want anyway.
But at some point I just have to roll my eyes,>>throw up my hands, and recognize the mentality I'm dealing with.
This isn't an argument. You're just saying they're obviously wrong.
They are.
Many ethicists believe that people should be able to do whatever they> want to themselves, and many people believe that the criminal behavior> associated with drug use is a result of the criminality of drugs.
And that's just dumb. It ignores the correlation between the psychoactive effects and behaviour. It is reasoning generated to support a position, not a position generated by reasoning.
In any case, even if we assumed that some increase criminality will> result from legalisation of drugs, then how large an increase is> justified by the increase in personal freedoms that results?
I don't measure my "personal freedom" by my right to use a drug that very likely will eventually cause me to behave in ways harmful to others, any more than I measure my "personal freedom" by my "right" to carry a nailclipper onto an airplane. Some arguments in support of "personal freedom" are counterproductive, and legalizing cocaine as a matter of "personal freedom" doesn't do much for more compelling issues of personal freedom. It's like that old joke, with friends like this, who needs enemies? Compared to real, substantial issues of personal freedom like association, religion, press, voting rights, etc., the right to snort cocaine just doesn't equate.
Clearly,> we don't outlaw all behavior that causes harm to others, otherwise the> speed limit would be 2 mph.
We find the balance. The choices aren't unlimited MPH or 2 MPH. We notice that when top speed limits on such-and-such freeways are 55M MPH, there are x number of fatalities per year, and when the limits are lowered or raised, the fatalities change accordingly. Obviously there are other factors, like number of cars on the road, unrelated changes in seatbelt laws, etc. But you do your best with the data you have and come up with the best number.
This is a much greyer issue than you're making it out to be.
In some issues, the ability to see the grey is the sign of an inquiring, intelligent mind. In other issues, however, the *need* to see the grey is the sign of a mind without solid values. Some values aren't flexible; some rights are just plain right, and some wrongs are just plain wrong. And seeing the grey doesn't mean kneeling down to it. It's possible to see it and reject it as insufficient.
Your> willingness to even entertain the notion of banning alcohol is so much> further out on the lunatic fringe than legalisation of all drugs.
The "willingness to entertain the notion" was quite obviously an intellectual exercise. Again, read it the way I wrote it; don't interrupt mid-paragraph and ignore the remainder.
It causes far more deaths than the others on the list, and is far more> addictive, so I think it counts. It would be a huge public health gain> if we legalised marijuana and banned tobacco. Though smoking hashish> would become more problematic.
That wasn't my point; I might not have been clear. My point was that the "recreational" substances aren't the tobacco itself, which is a simple plant leaf. Coca leaves aren't "drugs." Drugs are derived from coca leaves. That was the point I was trying to make, minor though it is. Tobacco isn't addictive; nicotine is. Smoke is harmful, nicotine is addictive, but the two substances are different. Injecting liquids into the bloodstream isn't inherently dangerous; injecting heroin is. It's just a matter of precision. To discuss banning tobacco (*as an intellectual exercise, not as a matter of puritanism!*) ignores the overlap between tobacco leaves, smoke, nicotine, and all the other chemicals we're actually talking about. Nicotine-free tobacco would be a different matter than nicotine-laden tobacco. Nicotine delivered without smoke is a different matter than nicotine delivered by smoking. And they all deserve to be discussed separately. That's what I meant when I said I was charitably agreeing to discuss "tobacco" as a catch-all term for nicotine, smoke, various carcinogenics, etc.
Then I suggest that you try the rest before assuming that you know all> about them.
That's dumb, too. And that's the sort of reasoning that I just pat on the head and smile. I hope you weren't serious, particularly when this comes in a forum where none of us have fought (for instance) James Toney but feel qualified to discuss him. No, you weren't serious, and you certainly weren't taken seriously.
It may be not as dumb as you think it is, Nixon once ordered a > scientific investigation to the harmfulness of marijuana.> This in order to support his ridiculous altitude towards> cannabis users and his commercials where the government said> cannabis will make you insane, violent etc...> I happen to have actual footage of such an investigation where> volunteers smoke cannabis and at certain intervals where ask how > they did feel. (aggressive or violent.)> Here is the exact reaction from one of them.> " Violent???... no not at all!"( expression :are you crazy ).> Q "How do you feel?"> A "I feel fine,.. relaxed, peaceful, great."> Q "Do you want to volunteer for a next investigation?"> A "Hell yes, any time... any time."> The conclusion about how harmful cannabis was, : not at all!> There is absolutely nothing to justify the billions of dollars> wasted in hunting down cannabis users.
Well, there's nothing so solid as basing billions of dollars and a national policy on the reaction of a single guy smoking pot. Obviously I must rethink my position.
Edmund wrote:> In message <B91he.17199$VH2.11279@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips> wrote:>>Be careful when you make obviously false statements like that! lol> It is not, and who do you think you are to know better? Did you > ever see such a coffee shop from the onside? I worked there for> 10 years or so.
There has never been a fight in my house. I would bet my life that there has been at least one fight in at least one coffeehouse. Therefore, your claim that there is "no place to find where there is less fighting than a coffeeshop" is more than likely false - as long as there has been at least one, somewhere, sometime. If there has, then there have been fewer at my house. I wasn't doubting the *general* safetey or friendliness of coffeehouses, but your careless use of the absolute. Let's be reasonable. Argue that they're safe if you want. Don't argue that they are THE safest locations and THE safest businesses in the world. That's absurd.
What should it tell me about the potential legalization of PCP, cocaine, >>etc.?> I could tell you that the majority of drug related problems are caused by > the fact that it is made illegal.
Sure, you could tell me that. Go ahead.
Besides, I specifically talked solely> about cannabis in this respect, because cannabis is proven an harmless> drug for most people.
That's why it's mostly inefficient and not very useful for us to try to have a single conversation about "drugs" or about "legalizing drugs." Something that we might be willing to claim about one drug, or about legalizing one drug, we might not be willing to claim about another. Let's talk about any one drug, if you want.
Because not every psychoactive substance has exactly the same effect on >>every person..?> That doesn't change the fact that most problems are created by > the illegal state of the drugs, which make it expensive and thus> attractive for dealers etc.
Robert Phillips wrote:>>Of course. What about Mountain Dew?> I have no idea why someone would choose to drink Mountain Dew. I've> never tried it, so will not conjecture on why people drink it.
Well, I've just told you. I drink it for the flavor. If it was the caffeine I craved, there are plenty of other sources of stronger doses. I don't drink coffee at all. I don't take caffeine pills. So if I'm drinking Mountain Dew because of the flavor and not for the caffeine - which, anecdotes and jokes aside, has a neglible effect at that dose on alertness, etc. - where does Mountain Dew, and therefore the caffeine that Mountain Dew has, fit on the list of "drugs" that you mentioned?
I'm not sure why you wouldn't>>respond to those two portions together, rather than interrupting to>>address the first bombshell sentence stripped of the qualifier>>afterwards.> Because I wanted to quote Homer Simpson.
Fair enough. I asked, you answered. ;)
I'll have to disagree. I wouldn't equate thoughts of>>decriminalization with "culturally acceptable." I'd guess that parents who might vote>>for decriminalization or even legalization would not want their own>>children to use it. That latter standard is, to me, more representative of>>people's true feelings than some abstract and hypothetical question>>of whether to legalize something they didn't want anyway.> There are many activities that are culturally acceptable that one> wouldn't necessarily want one's children to take up. There are a> greater number of activities that should be legal that one wouldn't> want ones children to take up.
This doesn't demonstrate that marijuana is culturally acceptable. You're saying it is; I'm saying it's not. We may have to agree to disagree.
And that's just dumb. It ignores the correlation between the>>psychoactive effects and behaviour. It is reasoning generated to>>support a position, not a position generated by reasoning.> Well, I think that your position is dumb, and your reasoning is> designed to support your position. There isn't any research or logic> that would lead someone to believe that getting stoned is likely to> lead to criminal activity. It leads to *less* activity of any sort.
None at all, huh? Well, end of discussion, then. When you offer such extreme claims, I lose interest, because it indicates that you're playing with a stacked deck. Sorry.
5016 wrote:> Robert Phillips wrote:>>None at all, huh? Well, end of discussion, then.>>When you offer such extreme claims, I lose interest, because it>>indicates that you're playing with a stacked deck. Sorry.>>Pie> Uncharacteristically, as well, you've resorted throughout to personal> attacks ("dumb", "stacked deck"). Seeing as you can't do any better> than this, then I think that you're not worth my time.
Look, you gave the ultimate dumb argument: if you haven't personally done x (used drugs, in this case) then you're in no position to have any opinion on them. Don't expect respect when you offer something so unrespectable. I regret that you resorted to the above, but you did. Dumb is dumb, and I treated that the way it deserved. And yes, it's a stacked deck when you say there's NO research and NO logic that would suggest any sort of cause-and-effect between drug use and violence. When you resort to that, it's again obvious that your mind is made up, and that it's made up into a ridiculously extremist and inflexible position. RSB is a big playground, and we'll talk about something else sometime. This one's done.
Robert Phillips wrote:>>Don't expect respect when you offer something so unrespectable. I>>regret that you resorted to the above, but you did. Dumb is dumb,>> and I treated that the way it deserved.> Look at the above. It is hard to claim that it is even debateable, let> alone dumb. Many ethicists do hold the above views,
My comments there referred to your "if you haven't tried it, don't talk about it" argument, not to anything about ethicists. Please don't lecture me about thinking when you're crossing so many wires. You waited for me to call you on that before you agreed that you were joking; had I taken it seriously, you would have allowed me to take it seriously without telling me that you were joking. In other words, you seemed prepared to fly that balloon as far as it would go. That tells me you had something invested in it.
And yes, it's a stacked deck when you say there's NO research and NO>>logic that would suggest any sort of cause-and-effect between drug>>use> Hold on! I said *marijuna use*, not drug use.
No, you didn't. Your words: 'There isn't any research or logic that would lead someone to believe that getting stoned is likely to lead to criminal activity. It leads to *less* activity of any sort.'
This discussion hadn't been about marijuana solely or specifically; it has been about "drugs" as a catch-all term. Where you said it in the discussion, my comments that you were responding to, I hadn't been talking about marijuana; I had been talking about "drugs." What *I* had been responding to, also, wasn't about "marijuana;" it was about "the criminal behavior associated with drug use" and not "with marijuana use." Marijuana and caffeine had been offered elsewhere as examples, but this thread and that portion of it had been about "drugs." I therefore assumed that "getting stoned" meant "using drugs."
If you got out a little more, you'd realise that your views are the> extremist ones.
That drugs, starting with marijuana and not including caffeine, should remain illegal? Yeah, real extremist. It's your extremism on the matter that makes you call *that* "extremist." I have never offered the death penalty for possession of marijuana. Of course that shouldn't be the sentence. I have never offered the same punishment for possession of one joint as for distribution of kilos of cocaine. Of course it should be different. I've never argued that there should not be any differentiation between sentences, or that treatment should not be an option in the penalty phase. Of course there should, to both. So I'm not sure where you can call me "extremist" except my disagreement with the en masse decriminalization or legalization of more classes of drugs. And that's hardly extremist, and you know that.
The Sanity Cruzer 15 May 2005 07:34:34 [ permanent link ]
"5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1116102135.619277.319550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Melanie Ley wrote:>> On 12 May 2005 14:21:34 -0700, "5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote:>>
Most people drink coffee because of the caffeine, I think.>>
Do you drink coffee? If so, why? I do - because I like the>> taste.>>
Heroin is less physically addictive than nicotine.>>
If you've ever watched someone withdraw from Heroin, you would>> eat your above words and apologize for the misinformation.>> Withdrawing from nicotine does not produce chills, vomiting, or acute>> pain.>>
I'm sorry - I should know better than to rely on medical research> instead of the secondhand opinions of know-nothings on usenet. I will> make sure that I run such issues past you in future.
How about this, heroin is more physically addicting, but many addicts have said that cigarettes are the hardest (drug) to quit.
The Sanity Cruzer 15 May 2005 08:54:02 [ permanent link ]
"5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1116130807.938626.121070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
The Sanity Cruzer wrote:
How about this, heroin is more physically addicting, but many addicts> have>> said that cigarettes are the hardest (drug) to quit.>
I don't agree that heroin is more physically addictive, because I've> been told by medical professionals that this isn't true.>
For what it's worth, try an internet search using "nicotine", "heroin"> and "physically addictive", and see what you come up with.
I guess it depends upon how you define "physically addictive". If you mean the symptoms which arise when one does not have a cigarette or their heroin (whatever the case may be), then hands down the junkie is going to suffer more. Maybe the reason people have a tougher time quitting cigarettes as they don't tend to impact one's life as much as does heroin, the cost/payoff of using/quitting cigarettes is not as dramatic as it is when you quit using heroin. Regardless, I'm not that interested to do any research on this. My friend is an addiction specialist MD. I can ask him. I will bet the answer will not be as black and white as you suggest.
On 14 May 2005 14:42:15 -0700, "5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote:>>Well, you're wrong. "Getting stoned" means "using marijuana". Nothing>>else; nobody says somebody is "stoned on crack".> I've been told you can get "stoned" on Heroin. However, I> will agree that term is generally associated with marijuana use.
Generally, yes. But I too have heard it used as a general term for "under the influence." Since as I'd said in my post, the overall discussion had been about "drugs" in general, and that specific point in the discussion was about "drugs" in general, I assumed that 5016 was using the term to refer to drugs generally.
For what it's worth, some definitions from Dictionary.com:
Stoned: "drunk or intoxicated" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
This suggests alcohol and not marijuana or any other drug, although "intoxication" is a very general term that could be used to apply to anything.
This suggests, obviously, narcotics; marijuana is not a narcotic, and in my judgment, Princeton can be trusted to know the difference and to not use the term "narcotic" carelessly.
Those are the only definitions offered at the Dictionary.com results page that have anything to do with this discussion; I didn't conveniently omit any. Although I find thesauri less useful, because they tend more towards style than accuracy, Thesaurus.com offers "stoned" as a synonym for: "drugged," "drunk," "ecstatic," "high," "impassioned," "inebriated," "intoxicated," "overwrought," "rabid," "tight," "unaware," and "unconscious," all from Roget's New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1).
It seems my reading was quite legitimate, contextually and literally. If 5016 would like to retract, qualify or alter the statement, that's fine.
The Sanity Cruzer 15 May 2005 19:59:47 [ permanent link ]
"5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1116170186.307917.155760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The problem is that you are pontificating about a subject that you have
no knowledge of.
That's what Pie does.
Ask some of your students what being "stoned" means, and they'll tell
you that the term applies to marijuana. Alternatively, you could try watching Comedy Central.
Whoa! You're not using Comedy Central as a source are you? ;->
Hey, "stoned" can apply to a whole array of intoxicants. Talk to a cop about some of their arrests and they say something to the effect, "The guy was stoned out of his mind on something." Yeah, in general conversation someone will ask, "Do you want to get stoned?", and be referring to smoking pot. That doesn't mean "stoned" isn't just a state of being.
<isaiahcamacho@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1116130392.968652.238210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Bobby Bearden wrote:>> "Peter Booth" <pbooth@nocoincidences.com> wrote in message>> news:428358E9.90204@nocoincidences.com...>
Did you watch the baseball hearings before Congress? It was stated> that 60%>> of high school athletes use steroids.>
I'd like to see a source for that. Frankly, it seems ridiculously high,> and I suspect you either have made some mistake or are making it up.>
I watched the hearings. Did you?
Wasn't it 30 minor league baseball players that tested positive last> month?>>
Look at the drop in home runs this year in major league baseball.> Even major>> league players and couches are saying they suspect it's because of> the>> tougher steroid testing.>
That's strange since they began testing in 2003 (with no penalty) and> there was no drop in home runs, and they began imposing a penalty in> 2004 and there was no drop (and the positive tests went from about 6%> to about 1.5%). The drop is not large also, so it's reasonable to> assume it's just noise.>
When people in MLB are saying the new spotlight on steroids is a likely cause for the decrease in home runs, it's reasonable to assume it's not just noise. And the commisioner of baseball wasn't called before Congress in those years because of the steroid problem.
Why is Barry Bonds saying he's going to miss an>> entire season for an injury that will be healed with 80% of the> season>> remaining and him so close to breaking Aaron's home run record? Could> it be>> he knows he can't pass a steroid test?>
No, because he was tested in 2003 and 2004 too. He's not known to have> ever failed a test, although he admitted in sealed grand jury testimony> to mistakenly using a banned substance. It takes a pretty warped mind> to assume that he is getting unnecessary knee surgery to avoid steroid> tests.>
-Isaiah>
I didn't say that. (Which I suspect you know, since you don't seem to have a problem with English). What I did say, and was said by sports writers, was that the injury and surgery alone is not enough to keep him from playing this season. There were articles that suggested fear of testing would influence his return more than the condition of his knee.
And please, all this "I didn't know I was taking a banned substance" crap is just that, crap. It only fools those who want to be fooled.
which appears to contain the prepared statements but not the question-and-answer portions. I searched those statements but didn't find the 60% figure.
The Sanity Cruzer 16 May 2005 19:21:32 [ permanent link ]
"5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1116254853.653404.65420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>
The Sanity Cruzer wrote:>> "5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message>> news:1116170186.307917.155760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>>
The problem is that you are pontificating about a subject that you> have>> no knowledge of.>>
That's what Pie does.>>
Ask some of your students what being "stoned" means, and they'll> tell>> you that the term applies to marijuana. Alternatively, you could try>> watching Comedy Central.>>
Whoa! You're not using Comedy Central as a source are you? ;->>
I think that a few of the towelie episodes of South Park might be> educational for a few people around here.>
Hey, "stoned" can apply to a whole array of intoxicants. Talk to a> cop>> about some of their arrests and they say something to the effect,> "The guy>> was stoned out of his mind on something." Yeah, in general> conversation>> someone will ask, "Do you want to get stoned?", and be referring to> smoking>> pot. That doesn't mean "stoned" isn't just a state of being.>
And, to quote the original usage in context...>
There isn't any research or logic>> that would lead someone to believe that getting stoned is likely to>> lead to criminal activity. It leads to *less* activity of any sort.>
... which is exactly the usage that you state does refer to pot.>
Of course, out of context, "stoned" can mean a lot of things, including> the punishment that I bet Pie would like to see instituted for people> who do things that he doesn't approve of. But, to anyone with even a> nodding acquaintance with modern western culture, it is hard to mistake> this for a reference to anything other than smoking pot.
You know, when you include "criminal activity" in the sentence, I think of heroin.
<isaiahcamacho@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1116217034.154393.17660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>
And please, all this "I didn't know I was taking a banned substance"> crap is>> just that, crap. It only fools those who want to be fooled.>
So you're accusing him of a felony without any evidence? Gary Sheffield> told a remarkably similar story in an interview.>
-Isaiah>
Without any evidence?
How about ex-girlfriend Kimberly Bell testifying before a federal grand jury that Bonds told her he took steroids?
How about his trainer Greg Anderson being recorded saying that Bonds was using an "undetectable" performance enhancing drug during the 2003 season?
What about team-mate Andy Van Slyke saying of Bonds and steroids, "Unequivocally he's taken them, without equivocatoin he's taken them. I can say that with utmost cetainty."
And what of Bonds telling a grand jury he used a clear substance and a cream (but of course, he didn't know they were steroids)? No doubt he thought it was Vasoline and sun block.
"According to government attorneys, BALCO founder Victor Conte has identified the designer steroid THG as "the clear." A testosterone-based ointment was identified as "the cream." Olympic sprinter Tim Montgomery testified that Conte used flaxseed oil containers to send "the clear" to athletes. According to a transcript of Bonds' Dec. 4, 2003, testimony reviewed by the Chronicle, prosecutors confronted the slugger with documents allegedly detailing the steroids he used -- "the cream," "the clear," human growth hormone, Depo-Testosterone, insulin and a drug for female infertility that can be used to mask steroid use." ESPN report.
Or the change in physical size, inlcuding the size of his head!
Bottom line, guys like Bonds, Canseco, and McGwire cheated to extend their careers. There is physical evidence, there are eye-witness testimonies, and there are even admissions, though of the "I didn't know!" variety. What more do you need?
Edmund wrote:> In message <XNsie.24262$VH2.1969@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips> wrote:>>If none of these drugs ever affected behaviour towards others or towards >>property, I might be willing to listen. But they do. I'm sorry, but >>they do. And that's the problem.> Right so you are saying that because other drugs can cause the same > problems as the drug alcohol, it must be outlawed?
Nope. The comparison to alcohol isn't necessary here. Society is not even content with the status quo towards alcohol, a drug that IS legal. Society tries hard to prevent abuse of alcohol, tries hard to limit availability of it, tries hard to attach a negative stigma to its use, tries hard to make people realize how dangerous and destructive it is. Legalizing more substances would seem to be a tremendous step backwards in that effort to make people realize how dangerous and destructive mind-altering substances are.
The "privacy of one's home" is a tremendous fallacy that isn't very >>useful in this conversation except as a smokescreen (no pun intended!). >> People who smoke crack are no more likely to stay home than people who >>don't. They might go out where people are when they're under the >>influence of crack. They might try to drive a vehicle to get there. >>They might behave...differently when they get there.> I have no problem with some things being illegal like :> driving under influence of any drug; Steeling; Fighting> or whatever harm done to other people.
All of those problems would increase if drugs were legalized. These drugs change behavior and decision-making. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I would rather prevent the problem of increased driving-under-the-influence (for example) than punish the increased number of offenders. Preventing a problem seems much more logical than reacting to it.
Your expectations are not reliable here. You are underestimating the >>sheer *addictiveness* of some of these "drugs." Addiction isn't a >>matter of it being illegal; an addict doesn't pursue his drug simply >>because it's illegal and therefore attractive. Legalized crack would be >>addictive, too, and it's the addiction that creates the problem, not the >>legality or illegality.> There always will be addicts, there are alcoholics too, but there are> a few people which are not alcoholics even now when alcohol is legal.> Addiction can be a big problem, especially if you cannot afford it> anymore.
Do you wonder what the new addicts will do when they can no longer afford the legal cocaine? Do you think they will shrug and twiddle their thumbs and peacefully and voluntarily wean themselves "in the privacy of their own homes?"
Awww...To attempt win your argument you denigrate us poor,>> uneducated>> > > working class and the downtrodden homeless. That light bulb joke>> was>> > > prophetic, wasn't it?>> >
I just made fun of you and you got mad. There was no argument. And>> I'm>> > only denigrating those who claim to be part of the poor, uneducated>> > working class when it suits their purposes and then change their>tack>> > when they have different purposes.>> >
*I* got mad? *I* changed my tack? OK...Whatever you say.>>
When you drone on about my "phony net.persona," make silly claims>about>> my allegedly wounded ego and now this...I have to wonder what orbit>> your reality wanders in and around. It sure isn't with most people>on>> this earth.>>
Let me help you here one last time:>>
5016 lost a debate with Pie on the pro/cons of drug legalization. He>> lost an argument he could have won on its merits because he got>caught>> up in a Beavis and Butthead debate on the definition of "stoned" in>> which he was shown to be wrong. He was the guy who boasted of his>own>> experience in the subject and made fun of Pie's lack of experience>and>> he couldn't even figure out what "stoned" meant in the context of the>> debate.>
Well, I disagree here - "getting stoned" means smoking marijuana and>there's an end on it. But we're not going back to this one, just>because you seem to want to, even though you think that it is a stupid>argument.>
It does not "only" mean smoking marijuana. It means getting "high". Any drug, legal or otherwsie, will suffice.
I poked a little fun and he came back with the Beavis type response>of,>> "Yeah but you're a hospital security guard.">>
You chime in with the Butthead chorus of, "Heh-heh. And you're a>> redneck too!">>
Then, to put the nail in my coffin, you give me, "You're a hospital>> security guard and you frisk hobos!">>
I took a slight liberty in paraphrasing your comments, but that is>the>> gist of your communications.>
I think that your failure here is that you don't appear to realise that>those people who make stupid insults about others don't merit receiving>anything better in return.>
You've persistently tried to characterise your butting in and insulting>me in a dumb way without any provocation whatsoever as being somehow>justified, yet anybody doing the same to you is completely out of line!>
This failure of understanding of yours is indicative of the reasons why>you remain a hospital security guard.>
Couldn't you find some Roma to harass to make you feel better? It would>make a change from frisking those hobos.>
Add to this, your kinship with the intellectual martyrs in Maoist>China>> and I know you guys never step back and pay attention to what you're>> saying. You just keep piling it on in hopes that the volume will>work>> for you if the substance does not.>>
Let me applaud you and 5016 on your brilliance, Isaiah.>>
It has been said: When you find yourself in a hole, you should>stop>> > > digging. Here's your invitation to stop digging, Isaiah.>> >
I'll take this unresponsive response to be you following your own>> > advice. Maybe you're smarter than I gave you credit for being.>> >
I was trying to give you an honorable and intelligent out from this>> exchange. I see you weren't smart enough to take it.>>
You are getting boring now. I really wish you would quit making me>> smack you.>>
-mwh
Regards,
//// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo-
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." -- Dan Quayle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's not likely we'll ever reach an agreement on any of this. You obviously like Bonds. I don't. He's been a great ball player, but not the best of his era. Griffey Jr. was called the best player of the era for years despite Bonds playing at the same time. I can think of no other player called the best of his era only in the latter part of his career. Fans recognized Ruth and Mays from the beginning. Hank Aaron's greatness really didn't become overwhelmingly apparent until he was nearing Ruth's record, but even then nobody was calling him the greatest player of the time. He was a consistent talent with longevity.
But all this on Bonds isn't because he has a rotten personality. Mark McGwire is a very likeable guy, but this steroid issue has ruined his reputation for all time, and rightly so. I feel the same about McGwire as I do about Bonds. They both cheated, and both would rather play dumb or outright lie than face up to it.
Respect to you, but not to Bonds or McGwire or anyone else not mature enough or honorable enough to admit it when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
The Sanity Cruzer 19 May 2005 20:01:40 [ permanent link ]
"Bobby Bearden" <thonn@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:gj2je.33$CR5.24@bignews1.bellsouth.net...>
Respect to you, but not to Bonds or McGwire or anyone else not mature > enough or honorable enough to admit it when they've been caught with their > hand in the cookie jar.
Mature enough? Denying guilt (or responsibility) is what people do to avoid consequences for their acts. And the bigger or higher up the ladder you are, the greater the consequences seem to be and the stronger the denials seem to be. It's that way in politics, the military, the legal system, business, etc.
I am not condoning it. I'm just saying I 'understand' it.
It's not likely we'll ever reach an agreement on any of this. You obviously > like Bonds. I don't. He's been a great ball player, but not the best of his > era. Griffey Jr. was called the best player of the era for years despite > Bonds playing at the same time. I can think of no other player called the > best of his era only in the latter part of his career.
You're not thinking too hard, then.
Besides - what, a consensus can't shift over time? The shift towards Bonds and away from Griffey might have something to with their respective performances over the past five years or so - when, of course, they've both been playing. It's unfair to evaluate Bonds or assign a "player of the era" strictly on the first part of their careers. Those who think Bonds has been the best player of the era (however long that is) do so based on his entire career, not merely the first part, and not merely the second. Bonds was a great player during the first part, when Griffey was as well. You speak as though Bonds only became good in the late '90s, and as though people can't change their minds in the face of accumulated evidence. Barry Bonds won the NL MVP as long ago as 1990, 1992, and 1993; Griffey won one in the AL, in 1997. In 1993, the year Bonds won his third league MVP, Griffey finally cracked the top 5 in voting. For 15 years, Bonds finished in the top 2 nine times. Griffey did so twice. During whatever multi-year time period you wish to examine, Bonds's numbers were competitive with or superior to Griffey's. Those early years, and not merely his latter four MVPS, figure heavily into why Bonds is now frequently called not only the player of the era, but possibly greatest player of all time. Meanwhile, talk-shows discuss whether or not Griffy will even make the Hall of Fame.
Mind you, I'm firmly convinced that Bonds has been using steroids, and I thoroughly dislike him.
