Legal equals moral?

[Grizzly]

What's the difference between alcohol and pot? They're both intoxicants.

What's the difference between AAS and creatine? They're both performance enhancers.

How is it that legality of an item translates into morality of an item? Has not alcohol destroyed hundred of thousands of lives, if not millions or trillions? Do people not steal a few bucks to buy a bottle? How does it being a legal intoxicant make it any better that smack? The same "side effects" are possible with either. Both can and will straight up kill you.

How is creatine or PH's any different than taking steroids? People take caffeine to boost performance, so why demonize the one because of legality? Why is it acceptable to take creatine but not to take test? How has this contradiction come to exist?

Here's a great example of horseshit logic: Last weekend my girlfriend told me that she doesn't want me to use drugs. They're bad! I looked at the bottle of beer and shot of tequila in front of her and said, "and those aren't drugs?" The difference, according to her, is that one is legal and the other isn't. So I mentioned how the cialis I had pumping through my veins was an illegal drug for me to be taking as I'm not prescribed. "That's different". LOL I guess when it benefits her, then being illegal isn't immoral, but when it irks her then it is.

 

[joeycrabcakes]

i think you'll get the same argument from a crackhead trying to legalize cocaine. I think the powers that be try to weigh the positives vs the negatives, and many negatives just dont come from caffeine and creatine. Although, i cant figure out for the life of me how nicotine and alcohol are legal, both are drugs with severe negative side effects and health risks. Nothing good comes from either of these 2, medically or recreationally. So, beating around the bush, but i guess i agree with you.

 

[Massive690]

yep, its all a bunch of shit. just do whatever the hell you want, thats my theory. if i feel like doing some drugs, then dammit im gonna do some goddamn drugs. what difference does it make, we're all going to die anyways

 

[Millard]

How is it that legality of an item translates into morality of an item?

Very good point lost on most people. Here's what MESO's own philosopher, Sidney Gendin says about this issue:

"The great eighteenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said no law should be obeyed. None whatsoever. This sounds absurd but it isn't once you understand Kant's meaning. Kant did not mean we should disobey all laws. That way leads to chaos. Kant claimed - rightly, in my view - that the most important possession of humans is their autonomy, the right to determine their own fate. Obedience is always the surrender of autonomy. But Kant distinguished between obedience - the blind following of law just because it is law - and conforming one's conduct to the requirements of the law when one grasps the rationality and the rightness of the law. There is a law that we should drive particularly slowly in a hospital zone and most of us understand the point of it. Kant would say we conform our conduct to the law because we understand the rationality of it. Kant would despise anybody who followed the law blindly. Right behavior requires acting for the right reason. If I don't shoplift because I know I am being watched by a store detective then I deserve no credit for conforming my conduct to the requirements of the law because I did it only to avoid going to jail, not because I grasped the reasonableness of the law that condemns shoplifting. "

 

[J DUB]

Grizzly,

Your argument is something I think about all the time. It is strange that nicotine and alcohol, which have no legitimate purpose other than for recreational use, are legal while items such as steroids are scheduled.

People in America see very much in terms of black and white, i.e. something is either wrong or it is right. Most are simply too dumb to see the gray areas in moral and legal issues, the law makes it so easy to decide. For most, the law prescribes what is right and wrong, yet most do not bother to question whether the law is necessarily the best thing to judge things by, as the case with your girlfriend. Alcohol and nicotine combined kill FAR, FAR more people annually than any other drugs combined, yet people look down on people who smoke marijuana or even use steroids as criminals because the law says so. I have always believed that many of the drug laws CREATE criminals out of decent people, and it is quite a shame that there is not more debate as to whether substances such as AAS and marijuana really deserve to be on the CSA.

For example, let's say there was a substance that killed more than 5,000,000 people worldwide in 2000, it is filled with known carcinogens and other harmful substances, and can even kill those who are indirectly exposed to it. If you did not name this drug and asked people if it should be illegal, there would be a resounding "yes." However, this drug is called a cigarette and is somehow legal (thanks to big money tobacco donating $$$ to politicians).

Steroid use on the other hand had no known deaths in 2000,has no effect on one's state of mind, it is not filled with carcinogens (link with prostate cancer is debatable in non-prone subjects), and harms noone other than the user himself. Which one should be legal? Hmmmm.....tough one. They can say save the kids all they want, but I would sure as to hell rather my 18 year old son (if I had one) start using steroids than start smoking, especially under doctor supervision.

While creatine and AAS are indeed both performance enhancers, the side effects associated with each are quite different. AAS can be faily dangerous for someone who doesn't known much about them or who is not getting periodic blood work done, while creatine is by all means harmless. AAS probably should be regulated, but they certainly do not deserve to be scheduled, and I think most DEA agents, deep down, would agree with that as well. It is funny, though, how performance enhancers such as creatine, Gatorade, $300 aluminum baseball bats, high tech bikes, etc. are acceptable but others are not. I am willing to bet that the harder baseballs and high tech bikes have led to more homeruns and Tour de France wins than steroids or other banned enhancers.

Good topic Grizz.

 

[J DUB]

Admin,

I am a big fan of Kant, and agree with him on most things, including his opinion on laws. I honestly think the problem with this, however, is that most people are simply too uneducated and stupid to use their ability of reason to really comtemplate the utility of a law as it applies to them. This is a higher level of thinking (makes me think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs), and in all honesty the vast majority of Americans do not have the ability to do this for one reason or another.

In a democracy, this lack of reason and analytical ability amongst the majority of the populace is extremely dangerous. It allows politicians to pass laws and basically do whatever they want, because they know that only a small percentage of people actually understand that what they are doing is wrong, and an even smaller percentage will actually try to do something about it. While there is an elitist theory of democracy that suggests it is better for a democracy to be guided by educated elites and that the populace should basically just let them do what they want, I do not subscribe to this belief although this is the state of affairs in the US today.

Our Constitution has been trampled upon for years because those crooks know that most people are stupid and don't even know what rights are afforded to them by this and the Bill of Rights. This is why I believe strongly in the Libertarian Party platform, as it calls for a return to our Constitution as the sole foundation of government and it advocates the principle that above all else, we own our own bodies (and consciousness) and should be able to do what we want with them so long as it harms noone else...I think Kant would agree with this as well.

 

[Grizzly]

Holy shit, I see a legitimate discussion brewing! Oorah! Of course, I'm going to go completely off the original subject to do so. LOL

I have used Kant as an example many times on this board. When someone questions the existence of morals without a deity, I usually point to the Categorical Imperative. Not so much because it's that good, but because it's one of the most well known examples. Plus, it is, essentially, a high falutin' way to state the "golden rule".

However, his claim that it is a rational method is flawed in that he leaves the ultimate judgement of the morality of an issue up to something as subjective and non-rational as a feeling.

what's my point? I don't know. I'm just having fun with the discussion. Carry on!

 

[Beefy]

Leave it to Grizz to start another debate thread. In my opinion, you just don't see threads like this on other steroid boards (which proves that not all steroid users are the stereo typical dumb ass muscle head).

On to my point...I've often questioned the difference between what is right or wrong within our religious or moral standards vs. what is right and wrong in God's eyes. Of course, you can always say you don't believe in God. That pretty much leaves us with a situation like Grizz was talking about-Legal vs. moral. And there, it's all in the mind of the individual. Like abortion is legal, but killing a piece of shit child molester is illegal.

Growing up in the Bible Belt I was brought up in what I consider typical Americanized Christianity; conservative to say the least. As I became more informed in things of the world and as I learned more about the true roots and ways of Christianity I saw that alot of what the churches I had grown up going to were saying wasn't really true or right. I'd like to know what you guys think about what is right or legal vs. what the Higher Power that created us thinks is right. Or if you don't believe in God, how do you decide what is right? It's a real fucked up situation to not know.

 

[J DUB]

I myself do not believe in any kind of higher being, but I do have a set of personal values/beliefs that guide my life. First, I treat others as I would like to be treated. Second, I believe that one should do whatever they want so long as it hurts noone else. Third, I am a devout skeptic, and always consider something false until I can prove it is true. In my opinion, if everyone followed these three "rules" the US would be a much better place. If everyone treated everyone else like they wanted to be treated, people would be much nicer and violent crimes would not occur. If people were free to do what they wanted so long as it hurt noone else, our bodies and minds would be free from government regulation and we would then be a free society (not to mention the decrease in crime and money/resources saved from ending the war on drugs). And if everyone were a skeptic, the media would be forced to be unbiased and truthful ( as in no more saying 7% of HS freshmen girls are using AAS), and most importantly there would be no reality TV!

Also, I like the term Americanized Christianity. Christians in the US have bastardized the religion as it was meant to be, and what it taught in the churches is often not the word of God but rather how the preacher selectively chooses to interpret the Bible. Christianity is based a lot on ascetism, but yet where I live there is a 20,000 member church where the preacher lives in a $2 million home. How Christian is that?? I wonder where all that collection plate money is going?

The Religious Right has also completely destroyed scientific progress by forcing Bush to restrict stem cell research. We are being set back by at least 8 years because of these idiots, all in the name of God when there is supposedly separation of church and state. Again, the trampling of the Constitution continues, and will not stop until the Religious Right is eliminated from politics.

 

[Beefy]

I'm with you on all of that, bro. But when you say you are skeptic, so am I. The Theory of Evolution is just that. One man's guess at how we got here. When I ask myself that question I just don't feel satisfied with "We are highly evolved primates." I would almost go as far as saying I dispise religion, but at best I recognize it only as a means of controlling and manipulating people. The one thing that I still connect with is Jesus Christ. I interpret His teachings as being anti-religion. That's why if you were to ask I'd say I'm Christian, yet I don't believe in most of what the American version of Christianity does, so to call me a Christian is a bit misleading.

Anyways, I really like your three basic rules of living. Since you don't believe in a God, I'm curious to know your ideas of how we got here. Not just how humans became humans, but how everything got here. Even if the universe were created by a big bang, where did it come from? I respect your ideas. I'm just looking for answers.

 

[J DUB]

Beefy,

How do you interpret His teachings as anti-religion?

As far as evolution, I certainly believe we evolved from primates, although we are still searching for the exact process by which it happened. Heck, yesterday I just read that we retested some bones from Ethiopia that were dated to 195,000 years ago, which puts our ancestors further back than we previously thought. I am curious as to what you dispute with the theory of evolution?

Now, where the universe actually came from is something that will not be discovered for some time. I have no answer for this, and cannot begin to explain what exactly caused the big bang. If indeed it started with a small particle, etc., then where did this matter and energy come from? Or, if you believe in a higher being, where did this come from? These are incredibly difficult questions, as people who are and are not religious struggle with this constantly. Even the most devout Christian has to wonder sometimes, if there is a God, where did he/she/it come from?

It is my belief that there are things dealing with physics, time, and the dimensions that we are not even close to understanding. I think there is certainly an answer as to how the universe started, but I do not believe that in my life I will ever know.

 

[Bob Smith]

Also, I like the term Americanized Christianity. Christians in the US have bastardized the religion as it was meant to be,

Im interested to know exactly what you mean by this. Please give some examples.

but yet where I live there is a 20,000 member church where the preacher lives in a $2 million home. How Christian is that??

Why is that NOT Christian?

The Religious Right has also completely destroyed scientific progress by forcing Bush to restrict stem cell research.

Companies are not restricted on privately funded stem cell research. The only limiting factor is govt funding, not on the actual ability to conduct the research.

Again, the trampling of the Constitution continues, and will not stop until the Religious Right is eliminated from politics.

As opposed to the tampling of of the Constitution by the Left, which is oh so much better? How is the "religious right" trampling the Constitution?

 

[Bob Smith]

How do you interpret His teachings as anti-religion?

He's right. Jesus was anti-religion. He talks about it over and over in the Bible, condemning the Pharisees and other religious leaders. This is something that a lot of people, including many Christians, dont understand. There IS a difference between religion and faith/spirituality.

Ill put it another way. I consider myself to be a man of faith; I believe in God, Jesus and his teachings. I dont put my faith in some guy in a robe at the front of the church.

Religion, as Jesus talked of it, is the rules and hierarchy and power structure of "the church." What he means by religion is how I view the Catholic church. Full of extraneous rules, the raising up of mortal men (the Pope, etc), and diverting attention from what is supposed to be the focus and basis of their faith. Catholics pray to all sorts of people... Mary, Joseph, George, Bubba, whoever the church has deemed as being a Saint. IMO, that is truly a bastardization of "faith" and Jesus' teachings.

 

[Grizzly]

"While creatine and AAS are indeed both performance enhancers, the side effects associated with each are quite different. AAS can be faily dangerous for someone who doesn't known much about them or who is not getting periodic blood work done, while creatine is by all means harmless. AAS probably should be regulated, but they certainly do not deserve to be scheduled"

You are correct in saying that there is a difference between creatine and AAS. Technically, chemically and results-wise this is true. However, I was speaking to the psychology of creatine/ph/other supplement usage.

When people buy supplements, they do so with the intention of getting phenomenal, "steroid-like" gains from said supplements. Look at the ads, that's how they're advertised. Their "intention" is to get the results of steroids without using steroids. How is this somehow better than using actual steroids?

I can understand a guy wanting the gains but not being willing to risk the potential health consequences. That's fine. What I can't stand is the notion that taking something with the intention of having "steroid-like" results as long as it's not actually steroids is somehow better or any different at all than taking actual steroids.

 

[Beefy]

First, I'm going to talk a little about how I interpret Jesus's teachings as anti-religion. This directly addresses what J DUB asked me and it also relates to my feelings toward mainstream American Christianity as being misled, to which Bob Smith asked about.

There are numerous places throughout the Gospels where Jesus expounds on the Old Testament, which was/is the Judaic Law. These are the laws that the Jews believe to be given to them from Moses. They believe Moses got these laws from God Himself. There are over 700 laws in all, and to break even one of them made you unclean before God, and therefore unrighteous. Sacrifice had to be made in the form of repentant prayer and an offering of an animal to be killed on an alter to God. The God of Israel has always required the shedding on innocent blood for the remission of sin. An example of one of the Laws of Moses is the commandment, "Do not commit adultery." Jesus took it even farther and said that to even look at another person with lust was the same as adultery. Jesus also denounced hypocrites who pray in public to be looked upon as holy or righteous by other men. He stressed a personal relationship to God instead of a formal one that required strict attention to religious laws and formalities. There is another example of Jesus being anti-religion when he is looked upon by religious Jews as having "worked" on the Sabbath, which is a Jewish holy day of rest. Jesus says that God didn't make man for the Sabbath, but He made the Sabbath for man. In other words, by being religious we always end up being
hypocritical because there is no one among us who is perfect.

That's my problem with Christianity as I see it today.
1)All of the ritualistic tradition that has been added to church service isn't Biblical.
2)Most people go to church to feel better about themselves, obtain a position of status within the church, or they approach it like some kind of social club. Bob, Why do people become "members" of churches? There is no mention of any such thing in the Bible.
3)I see most churches as J DUB seems to. Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. How does that collaborate with a pastor living in a two million dollar house? It seems to me that it's in direct conflict with what Jesus taught.

But just as J DUB said that most Americans never really think about things enough to realize how much the gov't screws us and operates beyond the Constitution, most "Christians" never think about things enough to realize how much their church operates beyond the Bible.

 

[Beefy]

Beefy,

As far as evolution, I certainly believe we evolved from primates, although we are still searching for the exact process by which it happened. Heck, yesterday I just read that we retested some bones from Ethiopia that were dated to 195,000 years ago, which puts our ancestors further back than we previously thought. I am curious as to what you dispute with the theory of evolution?

It is my belief that there are things dealing with physics, time, and the dimensions that we are not even close to understanding. I think there is certainly an answer as to how the universe started, but I do not believe that in my life I will ever know.

I with you in that it's beyond our simple brains. Maybe I'm just a bit of a romantic at heart, but I feel like we're all just a little more special than animals, plants, organic and in-organic matter, and all of the little atoms that make up everything. I really believe that we all have souls. So, even if we could trace back the creation of all matter, the soul isn't matter. It's in a realm that can never be proven or disproven. I've checked out some other religions, but I find that true Christianity is the only one that really moves me.

The thing that bothers me is that it seems you have to either believe in Creationism or Evolution. I was sort of hoping you might have known about something else that I hadn't heard of. I've studied the Big Bang and all of that, and to me there's just as many holes in that as there is in Creationism. In fact, I really think there's more scientific evidence for Creationism than Evolution/Big Bang. Either way, I guess it's just not meant for us to know right now.

 

[Beefy]

I can't believe the fuckin' Pats won the Super Bowl...