Essay On Steroids Should Be Banned

One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups.

Extremism is a plague of the human mindset that typically leads to suffering, and it must be acknowledged and kept in check so society can prosper. Religions are typically blamed for causing extremists to perform their horrific acts, and they are not completely to blame. Religion can bring out extremists and give them a goal or idea to follow, but it does not create the mindset. Humans have possessed a natural tendency to take things to the extremes, as evidenced by the Crusades and and the American Revolution. In general, these human tendencies lead to a useless loss of life.

The reason why is too many athletes are getting arrested and dying from using too much steroids. I think they should get banned and the athletes should perform to their natural ability. I also think that the athletes would perform better without use of steroids. So therefore the research and I think that performance enhancing drugs and steroids should be

Performance enhancing substances can potentially cause cancer, addiction, and in extreme cases athletes consuming these could put themselves or someone else in the hospital. They can also give children the wrong idea and have them believing these dangerous substances are okay to use. These are just some of the many reasons why performance enhancing substances are harmful to an athlete's health and should be banned from major league sports. First, since steroids and many other performance enhancing substances

By banning this game, the government would be stripping a person’s ability to practice a legitimate, entertaining, and competitive game. Furthermore, Fantasy Football does not share many characteristics with gambling, and is supported by professional, reputable societies, and by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Lastly, rules and regulations are being added to ensure that fantasy football maintains fair play. Fantasy football has some flaws, yet the government would be taking a large fallacious leap by banning or restricting it. It is imperative that the people do all they can to fight what could become an egregious error with profound impact on

Rick Reilly, a writer for ESPN, describes sports as “real” due to its “unscripted” nature that “cannot be faked” (Reilly). Often times, people use it as an outlet to express themselve in ways otherwise deemed unfit in modern society. As a result, many believe that violence is intrinsic to sports as it ascribes to innate human nature. Violence in sports such as tackle football and professional boxing creates some of the largest fanbases in the sport industry, filling up stadiums game after game, match after match. Boxing is the prime case of a sport that degrades the progress humanity has made from its nature.

This may be for no other reason aside from the fact that it is against the rules (Mumford 1). The goal in sports is to make the conditions as fair as possible. A sport would be unreasonable if some of the participants had a distinct advantage over the others just because they could afford drugs. The second ethical issue is the fact that many of these treatments have numerous terrible side effects.

okay, along with others I also believe that alcohol should be illegal all together. Why should alcohol be made illegal again? There are no positive effects from drinking alcohol, and banning alcohol could be an exceptionally great idea. Alcohol tends to cause health problems, problems in relationships, and can be exceedingly

This aggressive temper is not only present on body contact sport but rather, has become increasingly popular aspects of all competitive sport the arousal, which results from even instantly hampering an opponent may be a decisive component aggressiveness. Patmore, (1979) expresses that such attitudes suggest a high degree of aggressiveness in sport. Empirical research has identified stiff mindedness and aggressiveness as a personality trait which coincide positively with athletic ability and success (Neal, 1963; Ogilvie, 1970; Cooper, 1969). Psychologists have executed thousands of studies concerning problems related to aggression, but factors related to aggression to

Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high

Professional athletes should not be allowed to use performance enhancing drugs. We will focus on the health risk, unfair advantages, and role models. I believe performance enhancing drugs should still be illegal for the health of the players and the sportsmanship of the game. Although, I believe performance enhancing drugs should still be illegal, other people believe it should be legal.

This is because many organizations are trying to create more somewhat harsher bans to cause players to want to veer away from the use of these type of drugs. There are two distinct sides to this controversial topic, those who are believe that there should be penalties for players using performance enhancing drugs, and those who believe there should not be any penalties for players caught using performance enhancing drugs. Those who believe there should be consequences believe that there are way too many health risk factors which plays into the use of these types of performance enhancing drugs. They also see that there is a major disadvantage in sports because these drugs gives players that use them the upper hand vs the ones that do not use them. The ones that believe there should not be any penalties for players caught using performance enhancing drugs believe that there are some beneficial health increases that the user receives when he/she uses these drugs.

With that being said, it is not only an idea for sports to be competitive, but it is intended for athletics to have competitive instinct. Furthermore, Smith and Stewart are concerned with the scandalous behaviors represented by the counsel of the sports leagues; they are "[for] the fact that sports hold winning as sovereign, which in turn produces a demand for anything that gives athletes a competitive edge”(Smith and Stewart

I think that this bill should definitely be up for debate. To impose a ban that would potentially stop families or individuals from obtaining food, a basic need is a type of discrimination. While I do not agree or condone the selling of drugs, I do believe that there are various reasons why a person may resort to do something that is against the law. This bill does not leave any room for people who have paid their debt to society and is trying to get their lives on track. The bill also only specifies that “convicted drug felons” not any other convicted felons receives this lifetime ban.

Reinforced by research evidence, reasonable arguments for supporting the current law on illegal drugs are rarely offered. The clearest arguments are religiously based or moral views that the use of particular drugs is immoral; that people who use those drugs are corrupt and consequently, drugs should be banned and manufacturers, suppliers and users should be treated as criminals. Adjustment to drug laws has been advocated by a number of individuals and reform groups, however opponents announce that such reduction of laws, involving decriminalization and legalization, will eliminate the preventive effect and increase drug use and release much larger drug-related concerns into the community. A reasoning for legalization is that it would significantly reduce or even abolish drug trade inside the black market and criminal networks. Other arguments involve focusing responses within health instead of the police and the criminal justice system.