I'm not sure I completely understand what you're trying to say here. For one, there was no proposition in the text you quoted from me. For two, I don't agree with your proposition that demand would diminish by making it legal. If anything demand would increase overall, tempered only by taboo (much like tobacco).hoosegow wrote:Um like like it is done so well with alcohol? Actually, I think legalizing it would cut down on adolescent youth. The problem is that it is in the back alleys now because there is a demand for it. You remove the demand by making it legal, the back alley dealers would disappear, thus removing access to it by youths. IN THEORY
It kind of reminds me of the argument propounded by some (however few) for the legalisation of drugs; they reckon that if you legalise some drugs you remove the anti-authoritarian psychological aspect of the decision, i.e. doing something that your told not to do, and thus potential users are less inclined to use them. Absolute horse $h1t. (For the record, I am pro legalisation of many drugs.)
I won't hold you to account on this and by your own admission you provide no documentary evidence, but I respect your point. I have no clue on the science so your informed assertion, however anecdotal, is better than my opinion. Can anyone shed any further light on this point?hoosegow wrote:Ah, but steroids use in non-adults hinders future performance so it would be stupid for a kid of 15 to use if he hopes to become a professional.
It's not a question of relying on steroids, its a question of how far an individual, team, organisation or whatever is willing to go to make the most of the skill and talent at their disposal. I would agree with you that if somebody had to "rely" on steroids (whatever that means) then they probably would never make it.hoosegow wrote:If they are in a pre-scholarship/endorsement stage and they have to rely on steroids, then they will never make it in the first place.
I agree with you in part; I don't know enough about steroids to comment at length but I think many people would see that it isn't the paradoxically evil panacea the media and institutional PR makes it out to be. Regarding little Johnny, however, I think the point isn't that he might not be good enough clean, even given the opportunity of using, it's that if he IS good enough it might become imperative that he does use - is this something we want to see? It is on this point that we enter very murky ethical waters.hoosegow wrote:This is relevent, I think by saying that if steroids are made legal, people will see that it isn't a miracle drug. Basically it will dispel a lot of myths. If little Johnny isn't good enough to make it in the pros clean, he won't be good enough to make it in the pros while using - if everyone else has the opportunity to use.
Oh and Soccer (Football!) is a sport, and it is bigger than me and you will ever be ;P.