Is there really no hope?

[Zero Tolerance]

Is there really no hope at all that aas or prohormones will ever be legal? Is there really absolutely nothing that can be done to turn this around? There ARE good arguments as to why they Should be legal. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that this stuff is just banned altogether. It shouldn't be a big deal to, at the very least, go to your doctor and get a prescription. We have people dying of lung cancer and others running people down while drinking alcohol and that remains legal. So - there must be some way to turn this around. It can't be impossible.

 

[glenihan]

a lot of things the government does doesn't make, the only way they would become legal would be if some legislator stood up and said "we need to get rid of the law making steriods illegal to possess" ... what legislator is ever going to do that

 

[Zero Tolerance]

Is there any "fuss" we can make that'll be big enough and legitimate enough to make at least one legislator think twice about it? Even if we could get one legislator to consider the possibility that the ban was wrong, that would be a step in the right direction. I know there's stuff all over the internet about the ban - but maybe we can have one website that stays up forever 100% dedicated to getting the government to reconsider the ban. I wouldn't mind developing and hosting the website. That's what I do for a living.

You know when you get the feeling that there's something you could have done - or could be doing - but you're just not doing it? That's the feeling I have now - for me and for all of us. I can't even take the stuff. I have prostate issues. But I find it very disappointing how all of this happened.

If there's anything we can do, why not put our heads together and try? We can have a site that doesn't discuss much in regards to bodybuilding - just the ban... And maybe we can get enough people in one centralized location to make a big enough fuss for somebody to think twice...

 

[jrkarp]

There really is no hope.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

what legislator is ever going to do that

One that doesn't want to get reelected.

/karp

 

[Zero Tolerance]

Maybe another goal would be to educate those who don't understand why we use these substances and what they're benefits are when used properly. If it's a mistake for a legislator to make a move like this, then so be it - it could still help to get the job done. There must be some angle that this can be presented... Isn't it at least worth a try?

 

[glenihan]

sure by all means give it a shot, but honestly its going to be EVEN HARDER than the pro-marijunia people have it ... the perceptions about steriods are really terrible

 

[Zero Tolerance]

Well. Marijuana has pain-relieving qualities (back pain). So do steroids (Deca, for example). Marijuana can cause harm to people not using it (DUI). I suppose steroids could too (roid rage). I think they both cancel one another out in regards to which one would be more difficult to present.. The hardest part to overcome is the fact that there is no pro-steroid anything. There IS pro-marijuana stuff going on and you hear about it quite often. Enough that one day it may be legalized in one form or another. That's what I'd like to see happen here. Even the hint that it could happen would be better than where we are now..

There would need to be some genuine interest in this. I'd need to know that people would post about the site across other bodybuilding sites. It wouldn't be taking traffic from anyone because there wouldn't be bodybuilding-specific discussion - or individual pro-hormone/steroid discussion... There seems to be no interest here though... If there's no interest, then it wouldn't be worth trying...

 

[jrkarp]

The problem with your argument is you ignore one of the driving forces behind the ban on prohormones: the potential impact of the drugs on children.

While alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana can all harm teenagers, the occasional use (or even the development of a habit that lasts a few years) is unlikely to cause permanant damage to the teen's health. However, 1 cycle of steroids, especially without ancillary medications or PCT, can cause permanent, irreversable damage to a teen's body (premature closing of growth plates, permanent damage to HPTA). For adults, tobacco and alcohol are potentially more harmful. But to teens, a strong steroid cycle could do more damage than a year of smoking a pack a day. Restricting the legalized steroids to adults won't work either. I drank more in high school than I did in college, and I started smoking at 16 (I no longer smoke, however). Furthermore, most of us here cycle responsibly. However, many teenagers would adhere to the "500mgs per week is great, 1500mgs per week will be better" mentality. And most teenagers think they are invincible. I know that when I was 17 I thought I would live forever. Why do you think that the military sends people off to war at that age? No matter how much evidence we can put out there that steroids can be safe for adults, the potential consequences for teenagers alone are more than enough to prevent legalization from ever happening.

As for marijuana, it will never be legal in the recreational sense. For medical purposes, before it approves it, the FDA will require a delivery system other than smoking. First, smoking itself is harmful, and second, it is impossible to accurately measure the dosage. Since I know you can get high from eating marijuana, maybe a THC pill.

Look, I don't mean to be pissing in your Wheaties, and if you want to start a movement, go ahead, and I will be happy to help point people in the direction of the website. But it's never going to happen. Period. No legislator is going to risk his career going against such overwhelming public opinion.

/karp

 

[Beelzebub]

agreed, it'll never be legalized. we're not trusted with such things.

 

[jrkarp]

And ****, if they did legalize it, they'd tax the hell out of it.

/karp

 

[Zero Tolerance]

Yeah, the points in regards to permanent damage make sense.. Well, I wont waste any time then...

 

[builtolast]

Yeah, the points in regards to permanent damage make sense.. Well, I wont waste any time then...

Won't waiste time doing what?

 

[Bacaveli]

As for marijuana, it will never be legal in the recreational sense. For medical purposes, before it approves it, the FDA will require a delivery system other than smoking. First, smoking itself is harmful, and second, it is impossible to accurately measure the dosage. Since I know you can get high from eating marijuana, maybe a THC pill.

there already is a thc pill. its called marinol and its prescribed to aids and cancer patients to stimulate appetite and prevent muscle wasting. much in the same way that some steroids are prescribed to these patients for the same reasons.

 

[jarhead]

Actually I believe the legalization of marijuana is on the horizon. More states are starting to challenge it and it's another thing the government can tax the **** out of. The science behind how it can help with different diseases has progressed beyond the point of looking like excuses hippies use for the legalization of it. BUT the government has the history of doing exactly the wrong thing most of the time so who knows. I just love how the government only keeps the things that can reallt F you up legal. Alchohol and tobacco have killed more people than roids and pot ever will. But the tax es they get from the sales have become a neccessity to the gment. Look at cali and their gas tax. Their already working on a pay by the mile tax program to replace the gas tax in anticipation of the development of the hydrogen engine because the state can't support roads and such without the gas tax. The government becomes dependent on taxes from commodities, so what happens when they dry up or get banned? I wonder what would happen if the government DID ban smokes and beer? I'd be interested to know what programs are dependent on the income from those taxes now.

 

[Matthew D]

They did ban beer and other liquior and it didn't work... just like the ban on drugs and other things...

 

[Bouncer79]

I know we've all seen it before on these boards... "More is Better". It's this ignorant line of thinking that is probably one of the largest driving factors as to why the public can't be trusted with certain things.

Take for example the 240lb obese high school kid who is only 16-17 yrs. old. Maybe he starts exercizing and eating better but hears something about Clen or DNP. If he starts taking either one as a fatloss aid and sees some results after 3 weeks, chances are he's not going to want to cycle off and on... he's going to want to continue on taking his magic pills and more than likely will increase his dosage hoping to speed up his weight loss.

Now of course everyone's argument could be to set an age limit. But in reality, we were all young and at one time or another got into Mom and Dad's liquor cabinet, or some of us stole a cigarette here and there. Were those items legal for us to use at that age? No. And in no way could anyone guarantee that a parent using gear could keep it from their kids at all times. "Oh, Dad won't miss if I start sneaking a few of those Dbols he's got".

It's contradictive in the sense that yes, alcohol and tobacco IS legal. However, the taboos of gear are on a higher level than smoking and drinking.

It's also a matter of trying to educate the whole country about gear usage and the PROPPER way to use it. It's just NOT going to happen. Look how many older people still can't figure out a VCR clock. And you want that generation to understand why we are legalizing anabolics? Impossible. Take this as a personal example: You tell your Grandmother or Grandfather you got a new job designing high tech computer software. They are going to be so proud and impressed yet still know nothing about how to even turn on a computer. Now turn around and tell them that you just increase your LBM by 19 pounds and only gained 2 % in BF and all while doing a "safe and propper" gear cycle. They probably understand about as much about gear as they do about computers, but it's blatantly obvious the impact on reasoning and educating them that the steroid taboos play. And unfortunately, it's the older generation who are still creating our laws and grew up in a time where the education and resourses weren't there for them to learn about it.

To bring it down even another level: I'm still trying to explain to my family why it's not unhealthy for me personally to eat a high-protein diet. And they still insist that a low-fat diet is all I need... regardless of how many hours I've tried to discuss this with them, they still think that eating and training the way I do is completely wrong even AFTER they say they understand the concepts I explained to them.

It's just not going to happen.

 

[CROWLER]

No way dope gets legalized.

Look at the last election a VERY conservative president was elected by the largest margin in MANY years.

Conservatives would NEVER vote to legalize dope and the MAJORITY of senators and legislators are conservatives even if they do wake and bake.

 

[glenihan]

I know we've all seen it before on these boards... "More is Better". It's this ignorant line of thinking that is probably one of the largest driving factors as to why the public can't be trusted with certain things.

Take for example the 240lb obese high school kid who is only 16-17 yrs. old. Maybe he starts exercizing and eating better but hears something about Clen or DNP. If he starts taking either one as a fatloss aid and sees some results after 3 weeks, chances are he's not going to want to cycle off and on... he's going to want to continue on taking his magic pills and more than likely will increase his dosage hoping to speed up his weight loss.

Now of course everyone's argument could be to set an age limit. But in reality, we were all young and at one time or another got into Mom and Dad's liquor cabinet, or some of us stole a cigarette here and there. Were those items legal for us to use at that age? No. And in no way could anyone guarantee that a parent using gear could keep it from their kids at all times. "Oh, Dad won't miss if I start sneaking a few of those Dbols he's got".

It's contradictive in the sense that yes, alcohol and tobacco IS legal. However, the taboos of gear are on a higher level than smoking and drinking.

It's also a matter of trying to educate the whole country about gear usage and the PROPPER way to use it. It's just NOT going to happen. Look how many older people still can't figure out a VCR clock. And you want that generation to understand why we are legalizing anabolics? Impossible. Take this as a personal example: You tell your Grandmother or Grandfather you got a new job designing high tech computer software. They are going to be so proud and impressed yet still know nothing about how to even turn on a computer. Now turn around and tell them that you just increase your LBM by 19 pounds and only gained 2 % in BF and all while doing a "safe and propper" gear cycle. They probably understand about as much about gear as they do about computers, but it's blatantly obvious the impact on reasoning and educating them that the steroid taboos play. And unfortunately, it's the older generation who are still creating our laws and grew up in a time where the education and resourses weren't there for them to learn about it.

To bring it down even another level: I'm still trying to explain to my family why it's not unhealthy for me personally to eat a high-protein diet. And they still insist that a low-fat diet is all I need... regardless of how many hours I've tried to discuss this with them, they still think that eating and training the way I do is completely wrong even AFTER they say they understand the concepts I explained to them.

It's just not going to happen.

lets assume for the sake of argument you are right and the public at large couldn't be educated to proper cycling

so what? why does the government get to tell people how to treat their own bodies .. the government sure as **** does not own my body and i'll be damned in hell before i let them try to ... its MY body and its MY life not the goddamn government who DOES NOT HAVE MY SUPPORT yet still gets my money and i still have to follow their tyrannical rules lest i end up in prison due to the state's monopoly on violence
if some dumbass kid wants to juice and **** up his body that is HIS business, not some monolithic government's, the government has no right to tell people how they should act and what is good and what is bad for them ... we are human beings with the power of free will ... the government should stay the **** out of our personal lives and just make sure the dollar is worth the same in every state and the post office runs
one's personal choices are not the government's business

 

[Bouncer79]

lets assume for the sake of argument you are right and the public at large couldn't be educated to proper cycling

so what? why does the government get to tell people how to treat their own bodies .. the government sure as **** does not own my body and i'll be damned in hell before i let them try to ... its MY body and its MY life not the goddamn government who DOES NOT HAVE MY SUPPORT yet still gets my money and i still have to follow their tyrannical rules lest i end up in prison due to the state's monopoly on violence
if some dumbass kid wants to juice and **** up his body that is HIS business, not some monolithic government's, the government has no right to tell people how they should act and what is good and what is bad for them ... we are human beings with the power of free will ... the government should stay the **** out of our personal lives and just make sure the dollar is worth the same in every state and the post office runs
one's personal choices are not the government's business

You're preaching to the choir bro. I am not and never would agree with the government's bans of it. I was just expressing my view as to how they view the subject.

Just another note. For those of you who live in NY, the Sunday Newspaper (Newsday) ran a cover article about steroids and their gaining popularity. The newspaper portrays them poorly of course and next thing I know I'm at my parent's house to stop by and I get "are you doing steroids too like the paper says????". We here are in a lose-lose situation. Gear is not going to be made legal for public use.

 

[jrkarp]

Actually, the government has every right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies when it is in the interest of public health and the general welfare of the people to do so.* If people can't be educated about proper cycling (which they cannot) and if we can't keep kids from getting gear (which we cannot - and if gear was legal a LOT more kids would have access to it), then it is in the best interest of public health and the general welfare of the people to have it be illegal. Like it or not, right or wrong, the government has the right (and more importantly, the power) to protect the people if they can't protect themselves.

I think that we all need to accept the fact that it's probably a good thing that not everybody has access to gear, because with all the dumbasses out there, there'd be a lot more people fucking themselves up, not to mention how many teenages would **** themselves up on a gram and a half a week of test, stunting their growth and permanently damaging their balls, leaving them dependent on HRT and unable to have kids. I wish it weren't the case, but it's the truth.

Try doing gear in front of a cop, and then telling him that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body. Then tell the judge the same thing, and see where it gets you.

Look, in a perfect world, gear would be legal, and we could all do what we wanted with ourselves. But it's not a perfect world. Gear is easy enough to get, and not very expensive, so why do people spend so much time complaining about it being illegal?

And people need to stop with the alcohol and tobacco comparisons. Alcohol and tobacco are multibillion dollar industries that employ (both directly and indirectly) millions of people, not to mention the billions of tax dollars that they bring in to the states and federal government. You simply cannot compare them to gear.

/karp

*Many Supreme Court cases have focused on the right to privacy and control over one's body vs. government interests. I can find some for anybody who is interested.

 

[jarhead]

Actually, the government has every right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies when it is in the interest of public health and the general welfare of the people to do so.* If people can't be educated about proper cycling (which they cannot) and if we can't keep kids from getting gear (which we cannot - and if gear was legal a LOT more kids would have access to it), then it is in the best interest of public health and the general welfare of the people to have it be illegal. Like it or not, right or wrong, the government has the right (and more importantly, the power) to protect the people if they can't protect themselves.

I think that we all need to accept the fact that it's probably a good thing that not everybody has access to gear, because with all the dumbasses out there, there'd be a lot more people fucking themselves up, not to mention how many teenages would **** themselves up on a gram and a half a week of test, stunting their growth and permanently damaging their balls, leaving them dependent on HRT and unable to have kids. I wish it weren't the case, but it's the truth.

Try doing gear in front of a cop, and then telling him that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body. Then tell the judge the same thing, and see where it gets you.

Look, in a perfect world, gear would be legal, and we could all do what we wanted with ourselves. But it's not a perfect world. Gear is easy enough to get, and not very expensive, so why do people spend so much time complaining about it being illegal?

And people need to stop with the alcohol and tobacco comparisons. Alcohol and tobacco are multibillion dollar industries that employ (both directly and indirectly) millions of people, not to mention the billions of tax dollars that they bring in to the states and federal government. You simply cannot compare them to gear.

/karp

*Many Supreme Court cases have focused on the right to privacy and control over one's body vs. government interests. I can find some for anybody who is interested.

The fact is that we can't keep kids from getting gear or other drugs NOW and they're illegal! So add in the fact that you can go to jail while using something that isn't hurting anybody else and maybe you can see the viewpoint that the gov. is f'd up. And it's not so much that we're comparing gear to beer and smokes as it is we're pointing out the hypocrisy of the gment as you have in your post. We can't keep alchohol and tobacco out of kids hands either so according to your logic, the government has to step in and ban them as well. And if the government TRULY has the interest of the people and welfare of the public in mind, then they would have banned them, as they have caused far more deaths than (as pointed out) alchohol and tobacco. But as you pointed out, they are making money from the taxes. So in essence, they're sending out the message "as long as we're making money on it, who cares how many people get lung cancer, hepatitis, drive drunk, screw fatties etc." Are you OK with your government telling you that? I don't think anyone is. That's why the comparison is drawn so often. It's like they're pissing on our heads but telling us it's raining. The government is run by small interest groups, big business and insurance companies and our laws, all the way down to freakin traffic laws, reflect that. And as a result, we live in a country that has SELECTIVE freedoms, but by no means a free country. But you are right, it's not a perfect world and none of our bitching will change a damn thing. It's just frustrating as hell.

 

[jrkarp]

The fact is that we can't keep kids from getting gear or other drugs NOW and they're illegal!

Very true, but the problem would be much worse if it were legal.

So add in the fact that you can go to jail while using something that isn't hurting anybody else and maybe you can see the viewpoint that the gov. is f'd up. And it's not so much that we're comparing gear to beer and smokes as it is we're pointing out the hypocrisy of the gment as you have in your post.

I know, but the comparison is made all the time.

We can't keep alchohol and tobacco out of kids hands either so according to your logic, the government has to step in and ban them as well. And if the government TRULY has the interest of the people and welfare of the public in mind, then they would have banned them, as they have caused far more deaths than (as pointed out) alchohol and tobacco. But as you pointed out, they are making money from the taxes. So in essence, they're sending out the message "as long as we're making money on it, who cares how many people get lung cancer, hepatitis, drive drunk, screw fatties etc."

Well, that's the main part of the message. Money talks. You forget, however, about the millions who are employed directly and indirectly because of alcohol and/or tobacco and the absolutely devastating effect it would have on the economy to ban them. Also, alcohol and (to a much lesser extent) tobacco are a part of our culture, and have been used for centuries. Stepping in and banning them now is much different than banning something that is relatively new.

Are you OK with your government telling you that? I don't think anyone is. That's why the comparison is drawn so often. It's like they're pissing on our heads but telling us it's raining. The government is run by small interest groups, big business and insurance companies and our laws, all the way down to freakin traffic laws, reflect that. And as a result, we live in a country that has SELECTIVE freedoms, but by no means a free country. But you are right, it's not a perfect world and none of our bitching will change a damn thing. It's just frustrating as hell.

In a perfect world, I'd be outraged. However, the reality is that they need the money. And the reality is, again, that money talks. The special interest groups and the big companies have the money. It's a fundamental flaw of democracy. However, as Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

But do not tell me that we do not live in a free country. Many of the European countries that people think are more free than us are pretty socialist. Income tax rates can be well over 50%. The government has nationalized many industries. You have no choices when it comes to health care, and people die waiting for surgeries that are not deemed "necessary." Hell, why do you think that so many Canadians come to the US for health care? One of my firm's clients is a Vietnamese man who snuck out of Vietnam after the war, and was given citizenship in the US because he fought for our side. He came here with absolutely no money, worked 90+ hours a week, and now owns a nail salon. He just bought a $250K house and a new Lexus. In no other country could something like that happen. Just because the government puts restrictions on what kind of drugs we use and how fast we drive does not mean that we are not free. We have much more freedom here than most people realize.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

For example, Netherlands:

Prostitution and pot are legal.

Lowest tax bracket: 36%

Highest tax bracket: 60%

VAT/Sales tax: 17.5%

Highest tax bracket is assessed on a worker making twice the average. This is the equivalent of someone making $75K a year in US dollars being taxed at 60%. By comparison, in the US, a worker making $75K a year would have a marginal tax rate of 28%. The lowest tax bracket is 36%, while the lowest tax bracket in the US is 15%. Note the 17.5% sales tax.

I don't care how much pot you can smoke or how many hookers you can bang, if the government is taking that much of your money in taxes, you are not free.

/karp

 

[glenihan]

Try doing gear in front of a cop, and then telling him that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body. Then tell the judge the same thing, and see where it gets you.

the government does indeed have the POWER to tell her citizens what to do with their bodies but that does NOT mean they have the RIGHT to

i will NEVER believe nor concede that the government has any rights over me, this is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people, its main objectives should be administrative as i said before, making sure the value of the dollar is the same in each state, the federal post office, etc.

And i disagree that the government has the right or even the obligation to police what people do their own bodies. Individuals are born free and should have the choice as to what they do with their lives, it is not the governments place nor interest to dictate what people can and cannot do with their bodies

and i'm in law school i've read some of those supreme court cases ... it doesn't mean i have to agree with them nor does it change my notions of what the purpose of a government is

 

[jarhead]

I understand your points. By saying we do not live in a free country, I did not mean just the drug issue. Laws made by special interest groups and insurance companies have poisoned even traffic laws. Freedom of speech-gone. And the FCC is taking much of the credit for that. Freedom of religion-hah. In todays world you can't celebrate christmas for fear of offending someone. When you take away someone's right to observe their religious holidays because another religion might get offended, what is that? It's so muddled, it's confusing. Don't get me wrong I love this country, and I served it in the military, but I don't think we're free in the sense that our forefathers intended. And to me the current state of our government is unnacceptable. But this is all beyond the scope of this thread so I'm off my soapbox.

 

[Matthew D]

good post jarhead...

 

[jrkarp]

the government does indeed have the POWER to tell her citizens what to do with their bodies but that does NOT mean they have the RIGHT to

i will NEVER believe nor concede that the government has any rights over me, this is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people, its main objectives should be administrative as i said before, making sure the value of the dollar is the same in each state, the federal post office, etc.

And i disagree that the government has the right or even the obligation to police what people do their own bodies. Individuals are born free and should have the choice as to what they do with their lives, it is not the governments place nor interest to dictate what people can and cannot do with their bodies

and i'm in law school i've read some of those supreme court cases ... it doesn't mean i have to agree with them nor does it change my notions of what the purpose of a government is

Well, according to the supreme court, they do have that right. You may not believe that they have the right, but most Americans do. Consent of the governed and all that.

Your belief that individuals are born free is just that - your belief. Truth is, every government defines what its own rights and powers are. Ours has said it has police power to protect the public health and welfare. If the government says it has that right, and that right is not unconstitutional (according to the courts), then they government does have that right. Remember that Roe was decided on the type of privacy rights that you are arguing for now. It's a balancing test, as you know.

Just because this is a government of and by the people does not mean that it cannot tell you what to do. Remember that the phrase "of the people, by the people" and so on was coined by a man who instituted a draft. Talk about the government having rights over you.

Anyway, we have strayed too far off topic. Bottom line - gear is and will always be illegal. But who cares anyway? It's easy to get and not expensive.



/karp

 

[jrkarp]

I understand your points. By saying we do not live in a free country, I did not mean just the drug issue. Laws made by special interest groups and insurance companies have poisoned even traffic laws. Freedom of speech-gone. And the FCC is taking much of the credit for that. Freedom of religion-hah. In todays world you can't celebrate christmas for fear of offending someone. When you take away someone's right to observe their religious holidays because another religion might get offended, what is that? It's so muddled, it's confusing. Don't get me wrong I love this country, and I served it in the military, but I don't think we're free in the sense that our forefathers intended. And to me the current state of our government is unnacceptable. But this is all beyond the scope of this thread so I'm off my soapbox.

Well, like I said, special interests are a fundamental flaw of democracy. But the bottom line is that most of the laws in this country are pretty fair. And while democracy isn't perfect, it's the best we've got.

As to the religion thing, man, you're preaching to the choir. Thank the ACLU for all the fuss about Christmas trees in public schools and whatnot.

/karp

 

[Zero Tolerance]

Wasn't some group trying to ban the term "Christmas Trees" and have them called "Holiday Trees"? Sorry to stray off the subject here, but that's kind of ridiculous. No, we don't live in the same Free country our forefathers fought for. I wonder what they would do... The truth is, our country isn't run by people who believe in the same thing anymore. That's one luxury that many other countries still have. Since we'll take your hungry, poor, sick, and whatever else have you - we're now a country of hungry, poor, sick and whatever. I don't understand how nobody saw this coming.

Oh, by the way. Merry Christmas...

 

[bulkmuscle]

lets assume for the sake of argument you are right and the public at large couldn't be educated to proper cycling

so what? why does the government get to tell people how to treat their own bodies .. the government sure as **** does not own my body and i'll be damned in hell before i let them try to ... its MY body and its MY life not the goddamn government who DOES NOT HAVE MY SUPPORT yet still gets my money and i still have to follow their tyrannical rules lest i end up in prison due to the state's monopoly on violence
if some dumbass kid wants to juice and **** up his body that is HIS business, not some monolithic government's, the government has no right to tell people how they should act and what is good and what is bad for them ... we are human beings with the power of free will ... the government should stay the **** out of our personal lives and just make sure the dollar is worth the same in every state and the post office runs
one's personal choices are not the government's business

couldnt have said it any better myself. :goodpost:

 

[Meerschaum]

Well, according to the supreme court, they do have that right. You may not believe that they have the right, but most Americans do. Consent of the governed and all that.

Your belief that individuals are born free is just that - your belief. Truth is, every government defines what its own rights and powers are. Ours has said it has police power to protect the public health and welfare. If the government says it has that right, and that right is not unconstitutional (according to the courts), then they government does have that right. Remember that Roe was decided on the type of privacy rights that you are arguing for now. It's a balancing test, as you know.

Just because this is a government of and by the people does not mean that it cannot tell you what to do. Remember that the phrase "of the people, by the people" and so on was coined by a man who instituted a draft. Talk about the government having rights over you.

Anyway, we have strayed too far off topic. Bottom line - gear is and will always be illegal. But who cares anyway? It's easy to get and not expensive.



/karp

Yep your philosophical viewpoint is correct 'might makes right'

Auf Weidersehen

 

[AgnosticFront]

"**** the government" - pennywise