Chemical Castration Mr. Roberts Uriah Rhodes Comp ll Prairie View A&M University Chemical Castration Outline I. Chemical castration has become an overwhelming debate on whether sex offenders should have this option as a punishment or treatment which also gives the sex offender the ability to be released from prison. II. While there are many pros to chemical castration, the side effects outnumber the real issue. Chemical castration goes against a person’s human rights, it also is an option the government hands out so that the offender can avoid jail, yet they are still suffering due to their health’s side effects.
My point is that engaging in drugs while participating in sports can be very dangerous. Drug testing should be mandatory for athletes for their safety. The reason for drug testing are; teams depend on their teammates to always be available, drugs can change your athletic abilities, and students join sport teams as a positive activity to avoid getting into trouble and the presence of drugs in sports defeats the goal. I personally know how it feels to be on a team with others who use drugs. They practically “slow-down” the team.
It means this drug can enhance performance athlete. Ideology of the Olympic states. " The important thing in the games is not winning but taking part. The essential thing is not conquering, but fighting well". How noble this goal is but it has nothing to do do with modern sports world
Drugs and athletes Famous athletes do drugs make them feel and do better on the field or on the court. Many of athletes began using steroids in the late twentieth century. Many athletes have been banned from playing the sport that they love. Most of the major sports have made rules for using or having possession with drugs. Athletes want to make themselves better, but don’t actually want to work to gain muscle mass the right way, so this is why they take steroids.
Also, athletes must uphold a professional reputation, in and away from their respective sport. Inappropriate actions may inhibit the success of these individuals. Lastly, performance enhancing drugs create an unfair advantage when participating in a sport. These drugs may also affect an athlete 's appearance, and health. These are all common issues that sport managers face in the 21st century.
They can cause heart attacks and cause the malfunction of vital organs in your body such as the liver. The effects those PEDs can cause on the body are known as “life-threatening”. This can then also lead future athletes the wrong way as they see their role models succeed through immoral action and imitate them. The best solution provided was banning the use of PEDs. The implications of this solution is that more testing are done on athletes to see if they are involved in the usage of PEDs.
Soft paternalism supports the criminalisation of drug usage because the action and effects of drug usage fulfils the two necessary elements which justify state interference according to soft paternalism. The criminalisation of drug usage represents a mechanism through which the state justifiably limits the liberty of individuals on the basis that a person’s “decision making capacity is compromised by cognitive and emotional deficiencies” (Wertheimer 2002, 50) as a result of a drug usage. This essay will discuss how drug usage extensively compromises the mental faculties and inherent rationality of human beings to the extent that the action of taking drugs may no longer be considered voluntary or validly consented to. Furthermore the idea that
However, he is looking to use the traditional tactics of increasing the war on drugs through prohibition and control. The President also informed that he has instruction for the formation of a Task Force that will work to reduce the violent crimes. He also stressed that he has asked important government Departments, such as Homeland Security and the State
In our world today, scientists invent new enhancing drugs that affect our athletes. Athletes shouldn't be allowed to use enhancement drugs for their benefit because they put their own lives' at risk, affect our future generations, and cheat in the spirit of the sport. Some athletes illegally inject or intake illegal supplements to their body for their own benefit. Athletes would do anything to be the fastest and strongest runner, swimmer, or football player. As Nishan Guha in his article, "Growth hormone abuse: A Threat to Elite Sport" stated, "198 elite athletes were asked if they would use a banned performance- enhancing substance under two different scenarios.
AID required that parties interested in receiving funding to combat HIV and AIDS adopt stances opposing prostitution across the globe. The justice system ruled against this requirement: ruling that an organization cannot require others to adopt a certain belief or policy to gain benefit (Supreme Court). Both of these cases are similar in the fact that they have required our Supreme Court to read between the lines, interpreting the First Amendment to make accurate decisions relating to the people’s freedom of expression. Although our justice system ruled in favor of the people’s rights in both of these examples, a worrying precedent may be set as a result of these contemporary court cases. Can the freedoms given to the people in the First Amendment be interpreted to apply to a variety of disputes, disputes that might be deemed illegal if not applied to the freedom of
http:// project2engl1200.blogspot.com/2013/04/annotated-bibliography.html This article is about the dangers of being able to purchase military assault style weapons in the legal market. It includes an interview with Tom Diaz who is a policy analyst for the Violence Policy Center. He tells us that weapons like the one used in the Newtown massacre were originally created for military use only. I used the information in this article for one of my sources that argued how the option to purchase these assault style weapons should be illegal. This source is extremely reliable because it was posted right after the Newtown shooting and because it is published on NPR’s website.
Athletes may gain advantages over another because one may gain a better performance than the other who is playing fair. The use of taking drugs is deliberal with the goal of achieving an unfair advantage over others. However, there are those who believe taking drugs are not unfair advantages. Norman Forst, a professor and director of the medical ethics program at the university of wisconsin, quotes “There is no coherent argument to support the view that enhancing performance is unfair; if it were, we would ban coaching and training”. He says that using drugs is not unfair because it is the same thing as being coached or trained.
1. Is the Court correct? Explain your reasoning The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower courts approval of the drug checkpoint saying, “the checkpoint contravened the Fourth Amendment” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000). The United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision stating that the, “checkpoint program was indistinguishable from a general interest crime control” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000) that violated the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court is correct the only reason that law enforcement is allowed to conduct DUI checkpoints is for public safety and border check points are to secure our borders from illegal entry.
Professional sports are big business, and the use of steroids by professional sports stars compromises the integrity of the game; therefore, the American government has to intervene in order to maintain respectability in professional sports: With the Legislative branch, Congress is ready to propose stricter laws for the usage of steroids by professional athletics, the Executive branch has investigated allegations of steroid abuse by the Major League Baseball with the Mitchell Report, and the Judicial system has weighed in on the abuse of steroids with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court ruling that records of players in Major League Baseball teams that tested positive for steroid use were not legally obtained. Much heated
People who want to protect the lives of infants say we should not practice embryonic stem research on embryos because they believe it is unethical and they care about the lives of children. Since their beliefs and values differ from those of the religious beliefs and philosophical thinkers, they tend to have different reasons, and they tend to cite different evidence in support of their claim. For example, in “embryonic stem cell debate brings politics ethics to bench” Charles Marwick argues a principal claim in stark contrast to the position held by Glick. Whereas Glick said, “embryonic stem cell is ethical,” Marwick replies, “that embryonic stem cell is unethical.” And Marwick further supports his her principal claim with reasons that reflect his values and beliefs. To convince the audience that embryonic stem cell is unethical, Marwick explains, “ that the research involves the destruction of an embryo.” And to prove that “ a child 's life is important,” he reminds the audience that an embryo is valuable and worth protecting.