Just for fun, presuming you have absolute power and nothing you do is contrary to state or federal law, what new laws would you impose?  Be imaginative but try to keep it at least semi-realisitic.  Also, there is no unlimited budget for the purposes of this topic.

 

1. I would fully legalize gambling, prostitution, and drug use in "Vice Districts".  One such district would be in the Flats and I would give ridiculous incentives to private investors to convert this area into a Midwest Las Vegas of sorts.

 

2. I would create armed, deputy militias to monitor the bad neighborhoods of Cleveland.  This would be preferably volunteer, perhaps in exchange for tax breaks.

 

3. Violence in schools and bullying would not be tolerated whatsoever and expulsion would be imminent for aggressors.

 

4. I would regionalize the neighboring suburbs so that Cleveland schools would be given a bigger tax base.

 

5. I would require food stamps to only include certain foods.  No booze, no cigs, only health meats and vegetables.  Any infraction would lead to no food stamps.

 

6. I would impose a moratorium on foreclosures and require the parties to renegotiate the rates.  Sure it would piss off people who paid their debts, but it's better than what's happening now.

 

7. A high school diploma would be mandatory and enlistment in the army would be the punishment.

 

8. Panhandling and begging would be illegal.  I would create safe havens for those individuals such as warehouses with limited supplies, electricity, books, water, cots, but under no circumstances would they be allowed to accost people. 

 

9. Our city's hospitals would lose their nonprofit status.

 

10. I would utilize prisoners by reforming chain gangs who would work on improving our infrastructure (free labor). 

 

11. Finally, all deadbeat dads would be fined substantially and sent to Iraq.  No exceptions if they knew they had offspring.

 

 

 

 

 

"Feel free to be as blunt or nonpolitically correct as you want."

 

Over my dead, rotting corpse of a body. You don't own, run, or moderate this forum, and don't ever take it upon yourself to suggest that people have no need to exercise good judgement. This thread can continue, but you've already put it on thin ice, chief.

1. I would fully legalize gambling, prostitution, and drug use in "Vice Districts".  One such district would be in the Flats and I would give ridiculous incentives to private investors to convert this area into a Midwest Las Vegas of sorts.

 

More than a few fellow forumers may have a problem with this and with good reason.

I would regionalize the neighboring suburbs so that Cleveland schools would be given a bigger tax base.

 

According to 2004-2005 stats, Cleveland spent $10,115 per pupil while Brunswick spent $7,725 per pupil.  I don't think that money is the biggest problem with schools, it is home life and family values (NOT trying to sound like GW!!!)  I would be willing to bet that Brunswick has a much higher grad rate than Cleveland City.  It isn't the building, the newest books, the best computers, or the newest teaching styles that make a good school.  It is the ability for the teachers to be able to teach, the ability of the students to behave themselves and learn, and the willingness for the parents to take responsibility in their children's lives.  The teachers that teach in Cleveland come from the same universities that teachers from Hudson come from, so let's not blame the inabilities of the teachers as well.  I, as well as some of the other forumers close to my age (38) learned old school style and we seem to be pretty well educated.  Insert reliance on computers, calculators, and "new and better" teaching methods, and our country seems to be slipping in world ranks in education.  Its easy to blame the teachers, schools, and the almighty dollar, but when you get down to brass tacks, it all starts at home!  You don't need a fancy school to be educated (ie Abe Lincoln), you need the guidance and willingness to learn. 

 

Okay Mayday...BACK ON TOPIC!  :)

"More than a few fellow forumers may have a problem with this and with good reason."

 

Undoubtedly, but I think there are benefits to these safe havens you can't ignore. 

"You don't need a fancy school to be educated (ie Abe Lincoln), you need the guidance and willingness to learn."

 

Personal responsibility is the most important thing here, no doubt.  Schools, however, do need more money (doesn't Beachwood get $25g/student compared to $7g/student at E.Cleveland) for improved infrastructures, books, electronic systems, and most importantly, high caliber teachers who are willing to stay.  The amount of job turnover in these places is ridiculous, and finances are a huge factor.  Also, regionalism has other benefits I didn't really discuss in my "law" - increased finances for public education was just a positive that quickly came to mind.

"More than a few fellow forumers may have a problem with this and with good reason."

 

Undoubtedly, but I think there are benefits to these safe havens you can't ignore. 

I don't disagree but I do not agree with the location.

"You don't need a fancy school to be educated (ie Abe Lincoln), you need the guidance and willingness to learn."

 

Personal responsibility is the most important thing here, no doubt.  Schools, however, do need more money (doesn't Beachwood get $25g/student compared to $7g/student at E.Cleveland) for improved infrastructures, books, electronic systems, and most importantly, high caliber teachers who are willing to stay.  The amount of job turnover in these places is ridiculous, and finances are a huge factor.  Also, regionalism has other benefits I didn't really discuss in my "law" - increased finances for public education was just a positive that quickly came to mind.

 

We also have to remember that those smaller school districts have less children in them - so there is more money to go around.  I would like a break down as to what happens at John Hay, Lincoln West, Jane Addams or Glenville compared to a Shaker, Beachwood, Bay Village, Parma Sr, Garfield.

 

"More than a few fellow forumers may have a problem with this and with good reason."

 

Undoubtedly, but I think there are benefits to these safe havens you can't ignore. 

I don't disagree but I do not agree with the location.

 

Great and we see what casinos have done for detroit and now philly.  The burden on city forces cost more and i'd rather have my tax dollars spent elsewhere.

"Great and we see what casinos have done for detroit and now philly.  The burden on city forces cost more and i'd rather have my tax dollars spent elsewhere."

 

Since people are going to gamble no matter what (be it online, a different city, black market), then why not accept this reality and use it to our best advantage.  How are bars any different than casinos?  Both lead to addiction, tear apart families, destroy lives, but they're are certainly lines of thought that the benefits can outweigh these costs.

 

I don't know much about Philly, but from what I understand, Detroit's downtown casinos are a huge draw for the city (I have no numbers to back up this claim).  Probably not enough to save Detroit from it's current woes, but they do provide jobs, tourist attractions, money to the city (yes, I understand the argument about the poor losing their meager assets at these casinos, but wouldn't they do so elsewhere anyway?), and quite frankly they make the Detroit skyline look prettier, and that's an important intangible. 

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "burden on city" since I want them to be owned by private investors.  Do you mean since casions = influx of crime, then we'd be spending our money on more police, ambulances, road repair due to the influx of tourists?

Since people are going to gamble no matter what (be it online, a different city, black market), then why not accept this reality and use it to our best advantage.

 

I'm tired of hearing this argument.  Some people will gamble either way...some will never gamble.  And MANY people will gamble some, but would gamble MUCH more if it's easily accessible.  So, even though a lot of people gamble, shoving it in their face would make it much more popular.  I don't think that's what needs to be done.  That would be like replacing drug rehab programs with free drugs because "they're just going to do drugs anyways".

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "burden on city" since I want them to be owned by private investors.  Do you mean since casions = influx of crime, then we'd be spending our money on more police, ambulances, road repair due to the influx of tourists?

 

Yes, there is a huge burden on the city when crime is raised.  Beyond the extra cost, many police and ambulances have to concentrate on one area, thinning the available resources for the rest of the city.

 

Many people that love Cleveland love the fact that it is nothing like Vegas.

"Great and we see what casinos have done for Detroit and now philly.  The burden on city forces cost more and i'd rather have my tax dollars spent elsewhere."

 

Since people are going to gamble no matter what (be it online, a different city, black market), then why not accept this reality and use it to our best advantage.  How are bars any different than casinos?  Both lead to addiction, tear apart families, destroy lives, but they're are certainly lines of thought that the benefits can outweigh these costs.

 

I don't know much about Philly, but from what I understand, Detroit's downtown casinos are a huge draw for the city (I have no numbers to back up this claim).  Probably not enough to save Detroit from it's current woes, but they do provide jobs, tourist attractions, money to the city (yes, I understand the argument about the poor losing their meager assets at these casinos, but wouldn't they do so elsewhere anyway?), and quite frankly they make the Detroit skyline look prettier, and that's an important intangible. 

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "burden on city" since I want them to be owned by private investors.  Do you mean since casions = influx of crime, then we'd be spending our money on more police, ambulances, road repair due to the influx of tourists?

 

The money is being spent in the SELF CONTAINING casino's there is no spin off.  However, Detroit residents must pay for more police, fire and other services AT OVERTIME rates.  IN addition the casinos are Detroit's "Cleveland clinic" we are here in your neighborhood, but ignoring you.  The casino's are a destination with no connection to the surrounding neighborhood.  besides, the Detroit casinos are very underwhelming.

 

Speaking from a professional point here, in Detroit, the small amount of marketing partnerships that a given casino has with a business in the area is bad.  The "casino comp" program pays business 70-80% on the dollar.  Meaning if I eat at a restaurant and spend 100, the casino on pays the restaurant $80.  And since one business does it all are forced to follow suit, therefore lowering revenue and profits.  Also, with less revenues, they can't pay back loans, and who suffers, the residents.

 

Today the revenue at the three combined casinos has dropped by 10 million dollars.  There aren't enough of them to turn them into an "industry" as in Nevada.  Detroit or any other city will not have enough casinos to turn them into a profitable industry to THEN put back into the core industry and reinvent it year-over-year, like Vegas.  The Casino's in Detroit are reactionairy, not organic.  If they were so great, then Detroit's leisure traveler index would have move up.

 

In Detroit a more depressed market than Cleveland, who cannot (or has a more difficult time diversifying its economy) change, has people running into the casino with $20 and coming out at a loss at a higher rate than Atlantic City.  Speaking of Atlantic City, look at the area right outside of the boardwalk.  Its scary as hell.

MTS, I don't think you could be more off when it comes to what the city of Detroit pays/costs to maintain casinos. (i.e. city tax dollars covering extra police and what not).

Good points mts. From what i've learned about casinos they seem like blood-sucking leaches more than anything.

"I'm tired of hearing this argument.  Some people will gamble either way...some will never gamble.  And MANY people will gamble some, but would gamble MUCH more if it's easily accessible.  So, even though a lot of people gamble, shoving it in their face would make it much more popular.  I don't think that's what needs to be done.  That would be like replacing drug rehab programs with free drugs because "they're just going to do drugs anyways"."

 

 

I don't buy that.  It seems to me gambling from your home is already pretty easily accessible and much more convenient than actually going to a casino.  Just turn your computer on and click. 

 

"Beyond the extra cost, many police and ambulances have to concentrate on one area, thinning the available resources for the rest of the city."

 

I think the idea is that the tourism would generate revenue that ideally would pay for these extra police/ambulances.  Or since I can change all laws, I can mandate that every casino maintain a substantial private security force, which should relieve some of the pressure of those public services.

 

 

I also don't quite follow your drug rehab comparisson. 

 

 

 

" Speaking of Atlantic City, look at the area right outside of the boardwalk.  Its scary as hell."

 

--that's just bad planning on the city/planning end of things

My comparison is that casinos are enablers rather than helping those with a problem.

 

For many people I know, gambling is more of a phase or pass-the-time-when-bored type of activity than an addiction, but when they get hooked on it (for various reasons) it can easily turn into an addiction.  I don't think a casino would be the only way people would become addicted to gambling, but I firmly believe it would have that affect on many people that may not otherwise become addicted to gambling.

Good points mts. From what i've learned about casinos they seem like blood-sucking leaches more than anything.

 

Absolutely...they are there to make (a lot of) money, not give back, and I feel they do much more bad for the community than good.

I still don't quite understand that.  Wouldn't those people be addicted anyway via online gambling?  Again, it's certainly more easy to turn on your computer and go to your favorite gambling site rather than have to actually leave, drive, park, gamble, unpark, drive, and return. 

 

My point is I don't see that casinos would enable people any more than online gambling already does.  I can see that the atmosphere in a casino is more desirable (the booze, the girls, the excitement, the audiences, the lighting, the aura), and if you're addicted to the actual atmosphere, well, that's quite different than spending time alone in your room playing online poker.  But, if the addiction is to just the gambling, then I still see no extra enabling since you'd be doing it anyway.

 

 

From what i've learned about casinos they seem like blood-sucking leaches more than anything.

 

I think that reasonable people can disagree on the casino issue and make sensible, logical arguments on either side.  In the case of my community, when the casino issue comes up, I have to ask myself what is my real motivation for wanting, or not wanting it here.  From an ownership side I would fight tooth and nail to get a casino, as it is best for me financially, but from a resident perspective, it has little upside with the exception of ease of use.  If ease of use is my driving issue then I personally may have a problem.  So why not leave the casino as a destination?  Why not leave the cities like Vegas or Atlantic City who is very adept at tackling the ancillary issues associated with having a casino, or multiple casinos be the destination for those of us who wish to gamble recreationally? 

 

If the question is, what law should we change, I say lets change a law that undeniably will have a positive impact on the cities.  Nuisance abatement laws would be very high on my list.  Number one complaint of at least our inner city in Cincinnati is panhandling and loitering.  If just those two simple things could be agressively enforced, then we would be a long way towards attracting residents and businesses to our urban core.  Sometimes the smallest, simplest issues are the ones that can have the greatest affect.

 

 

6. I would impose a moratorium on foreclosures and require the parties to renegotiate the rates.

I would say terms vs rate.  If we allowed property owners to move into a fixed vs adjustable would solve the issue more than a short term rate lock.

MTS, I don't think you could be more off when it comes to what the city of Detroit pays/costs to maintain casinos. (i.e. city tax dollars covering extra police and what not).

 

Actually Pope, we've had talks with the casinos. I don't have up-to-date numbers but I clearly remember information on how the cost of city services increased due and the distribution of services changing because of them.

Number one complaint of at least our inner city in Cincinnati is panhandling and loitering.  If just those two simple things could be agressively enforced, then we would be a long way towards attracting residents and businesses to our urban core.  Sometimes the smallest, simplest issues are the ones that can have the greatest affect.

 

This is so true. Last night I was hasseled for money three times coming back from the gym at uc and it's only a 3 block walk to my house! I think the issue has gotten worse in Clifton Heights recently and I'm going to start reporting it every time it happens. I don't feel that threatened by it but it's starting to get really annoying and it's not good for the neighborhood. They're always right outside the Shell station or by a bench at a bus stop. I think store owners, particularly gas station owners need to do a better job at putting an end to it as well. Especially since it can only hurt their own business. No one is going to want to go to your convenience store if you have a man standing outside hasseling you for change every time you go in.

Especially since it can only hurt their own business. No one is going to want to go to your convenience store if you have a man standing outside hasseling you for change every time you go in.

I will try not to go off on a tangent but how do you have 108 social services in one neighborhood yet still have panhandling, or people sleeping in parks or on business's steps?  The next law I would put in place, (it will never happen) is to distribute social services throughout all communities, instead of concentrating all in one or two.  A city as a whole should shoulder the problems of its people, not just a single community.  Something has to be done differently because everyone looses the way it is.

I still don't quite understand that.  Wouldn't those people be addicted anyway via online gambling?

 

I know many people who used to play poker online (and waste a lot of money) that don't anymore because it has been made a lot harder to play with real money online.  No, this will not stop those who are hard-core addicted, but it's not as if it's binary, you're addicted or you're not.  There are those who may become addicted if it is easier to gamble...and since they outlawed online gambling in the US, a downtown casino would be much easier than gambling online.

Some of these aren't neccesarily laws, but things I would change at the government level to improve Cincinnati:

 

1. De-criminalize certain offenses that seem to be oppressive (i.e. marijuana use).

 

2. Restructure permiting fees and the application/permitting processes to be more efficient/streamlined...this would also involve increasing permitting fees to allow for more staff and guaranteed quicker turn-around for developers.  Time = Money.

 

3. Adopt a form-based code and ditch the old euclidean zoning that is currently used.  Once again making government more efficient and effective.

Some of these aren't neccesarily laws, but things I would change at the government level to improve Cincinnati:

 

1. De-criminalize certain offenses that seem to be oppressive (i.e. marijuana use).

 

 

I agree with the de-criminalization of marijuana, but that is much more easier said than done.  Yes it would clear up jail space, but also would promote more usage because of the lack of jail time, and because it is still illegal at the Federal level, the underground market would grow in Cincinnati thus leading to more crime.  It truly is a double-sword, but I believe that should be left up to the Federal Government and produced and sold by private companies, much like Big Tobacco, and taxed heavily. 

I agree with the de-criminalization of marijuana,

 

I really do not care one way or the other so long as you do not purchase or consume it outside the front door of my house.  That being said, what argument can you give for the legalization for marijuana that I could not turn around and apply it to every other illegal drug for its legalization?

That being said, what argument can you give for the legalization for marijuana that I could not turn around and apply it to every other illegal drug for its legalization?

 

That it doesn't cause hallucinations?

 

Seriously, though, couldn't your same argument be applied to alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, television, bungee jumping...

I have a bit of a problem with the tax thing.  If you are saying that we tax something to discourage it, then why tax income?  We use laws and controls to limit use, we use taxes for us to pay for public services.   

No one dies from weed, at least not directly.  The other things you just mentioned result in heart disease, lung cancer, heart disease, um, David Hasselhoff, and uh, some skit on Real World/Road Rules?

 

 

No one dies from weed, at least not directly

I may be able to name a few controlled substances that will not directly kill you as well.  How about Steroids?

everything else is taxed.  Cigarettes are taxed by each state, so is alcohol and gas.  A pack of smokes in Cincinnati cost about $4.50, in NKY about a buck less.  NYC maybe 8 to 10 bucks.  everything is taxed.  legalize marijuana tax it.  put it in the same category as alcohol and tobacco.  Hell, fast food is more dangerous that all those.

No one dies from weed, at least not directly.  The other things you just mentioned result in heart disease, lung cancer, heart disease, um, David Hasselhoff, and uh, some skit on Real World/Road Rules?

 

My point was where do you draw the line.  If you say making marijuana legal opens the door to making everything else legal, then what is the argument for those other possibly lethal agents being legal?

So do we legalize across the board and just tax?  I feel that tax is so misused (there is a law to change, tax law) and is a poor deterrent as it basically says anything is ok, as long as you can pay.

 

If you say making marijuana legal opens the door to making everything else legal, then what is the argument for those other possibly lethal agents being legal?

alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, television, bungee jumping..

 

There are laws governing each of these (fatty foods are coming)  The tax that I pay on top of any of these, and I pay taxes for all but the last, does not factor into my usage.  I drink, tax be damned.  I choose not to smoke, tax be damned.  I watch cable, and do not even understand the taxes I pay for it. 

 

If taxes are a limiting factor, as I said, why tax income, why tax property, why have a sales tax?  We loose site of the why?  If you want weed to be legal, make it legal.  If you want cigarettes use to go down because it kills people, then make it illegal.  Do not say we are going to tax our way to right and wrong.

im just saying, it should be legalized and possibly controlled to a certain extent by the goverment, much like alcohol is, to help reduce crime and the selling of it in the black market.  I'm am trying to relate this to prohibition and some of the backlash that it caused (i.e. gangs, unnecessary arrests, etc.)

I'm am trying to relate this to prohibition and some of the backlash that it caused

I would relate this to anything else that is illegal and the backlash it causes then.  I can not get a pain killer prescription and it is illegal so I go underground.  I can not purchase a gun because of a felony conviction (just an example) so I go underground.  I am 16 years old and can not legally buy alchohol, I find a way.  I can go on and on and on.  What I am saying is what argument can you give me for this one thing, weed, that I can not apply to anything else.  Legalize it because someone will get it illegally otherwise I just do not feel is a compelling argument.

 

On the other hand, you should like my argument-legalize and don't tax, or just leave it illegal, hardly enforced, but illegal.

What I am saying is what argument can you give me for this one thing, weed, that I can not apply to anything else.

 

I think the problem is, what argument is there for making it illegal that could not be applied to cigarettes and alcohol?

 

It is not chemically addictive, that is the major thing that sets it apart from many other illegal drugs.  Emotionally addictive, yes, but so are MANY legal substances (and activities for that matter).

 

4. I would regionalize the neighboring suburbs so that Cleveland schools would be given a bigger tax base.

 

11. Finally, all deadbeat dads would be fined substantially and sent to Iraq.  No exceptions if they knew they had offspring.

 

 

I think if 11 wasn't an issue, Cleveland school funding would be seem adequate as I am of the opinion results would drastically improve.

 

But hard to place all of on the blame on Dad...they didn't have the kid by themselves, just easier for them to hit and run, so to speak.  Plus hard to define "dead beat dad".  Does Tom Brady count?

what argument is there for making it illegal that could not be applied to cigarettes and alcohol

My argument then would simply be that it is illegal, cigarettes and alcohol are not.  The law has been written and there now has to be a change in that law.  No change for cigarettes or alcohol law.

 

I am saying that if you are going to change this law for the reasons of non chemical addiction, then legalize the steroid.  Anyone with me?  Doesn't kill, not chemically addictive, makes sports more entertaining  but I guess weed does as well from the user/spectator perspective

No one dies from weed, at least not directly.  The other things you just mentioned result in heart disease, lung cancer, heart disease, um, David Hasselhoff, and uh, some skit on Real World/Road Rules?

 

You are kidding, right?? Marijuana is a mind altering drug. It does not need to be a hallucinogen to be illegal for use. Marijuana contains almost 5x's the amount of cancer causing chemicals that tobacco contains. The effects of smoking 2 or 3 joints are equivalent to a pack of cigarettes. The only reason we don't hear of people dying of lung cancer due to pot smoking is because people do not currently smoke a carton of joints per week. Legalize it and watch how much health costs and insurance rise because of the unhealthy effects of smoking marijuana will create. For a state that voted to ban cig smoking indoors, I am shocked so many people would support the legalization of smoking another far more potent plant.

 

Effects of smoking marijuana are....

Loss of coordination

Problems with memory

Loss or distortion of perception

Problems with vision

Increased heart rate

Anxiety

 

And these are just the short term effects...

Well that sounds much more compelling than my argument.  Weed out and steroid in then I guess!  This will really piss congress off, what will they have to do now?

I'd legalize everything but I'd also put in government controls similar to what we have with alcohol. You would see less harsh versions of the drugs become available instead of the uncontrolled street versions. It would allow the police to police alot more effectively, imo. It would also allow me to tax the bejeezus out of drug sales to pay for all the various treatment centers and health professionals that I'll need once it is legal. Currently you and I pay for these services while Mr. Drug Dealer gets his 85% profit (or whatever the number is).

 

Legalizing drugs won't be pretty, but it would solve a ton of real problems while allowing society a chance to create an infrastructure to deal with things above board, instead of chasing this problem in the shadows.

I think the only control the government has is how much tax they are making off alcohol sales. You can buy as much alcohol as you want during sales hours and consume it anytime you want afterwards. Drunk driving is rampant along with public intoxication and underage consumption. Alcohol is controlled legally and yet, people are doing what the can to bend those rules even more. There is no true government drug control.

what argument is there for making it illegal that could not be applied to cigarettes and alcohol

My argument then would simply be that it is illegal, cigarettes and alcohol are not.  The law has been written and there now has to be a change in that law.  No change for cigarettes or alcohol law.

 

I am saying that if you are going to change this law for the reasons of non chemical addiction, then legalize the steroid.  Anyone with me?  Doesn't kill, not chemically addictive, makes sports more entertaining  but I guess weed does as well from the user/spectator perspective

 

Regular steroid use does cause death, much more so than alcohol or tobacco.  Lots of people who use regularly die young (usually before 40) of heart, kidney, or liver failure.  Not to mention the whole roid rage, kill your family then yourself side of it...

Regular steroid use does cause death, much more so than alcohol or tobacco.

I am not actually advocating legalizing steriods but I will have to disagaree with you on this statement

what argument is there for making it illegal that could not be applied to cigarettes and alcohol

My argument then would simply be that it is illegal, cigarettes and alcohol are not.  The law has been written and there now has to be a change in that law.  No change for cigarettes or alcohol law.

 

I am saying that if you are going to change this law for the reasons of non chemical addiction, then legalize the steroid.  Anyone with me?  Doesn't kill, not chemically addictive, makes sports more entertaining  but I guess weed does as well from the user/spectator perspective

 

Regular steroid use does cause death, much more so than alcohol or tobacco.  Lots of people who use regularly die young (usually before 40) of heart, kidney, or liver failure.  Not to mention the whole roid rage, kill your family then yourself side of it...

 

 

Not too mention it makes your genitals shrink. I think that is a fate worse than death itself for most men! :lol:

Regular steroid use does cause death, much more so than alcohol or tobacco.

I am not actually advocating legalizing steriods but I will have to disagaree with you on this statement

 

I didn't think you were advocating it, but you also said "it doesn't kill". 

 

It does kill and I believe regular steriod use kills more (or I believe quicker) than regular alcohol or tobacco use, although I could be wrong.  But it still leads to health problems that result in death.

Weed and impotency I believe are two words I have heard in the same sentence.  A synthetic testosterone can shut down the bodies production of its own testosterone but that is generally reversed when the use ends and resumes production.  So I will rest in saying that we are even I guess on that point.

 

but you also said "it doesn't kill".

I absolutely stand by this statement whether you say more, quicker or more regular.

 

Did I mention that I am not actually advocating the legalizing of steroids?  My point was that if you pick one drug to legalize, what arguments can you give me that I can not apply to other drugs to be legalized?

steroids even at prescription doses may cause psychosis and psychotic patients may pose a threat to themselves or society at large. 

I think the only control the government has is how much tax they are making off alcohol sales. You can buy as much alcohol as you want during sales hours and consume it anytime you want afterwards. Drunk driving is rampant along with public intoxication and underage consumption. Alcohol is controlled legally and yet, people are doing what the can to bend those rules even more. There is no true government drug control.

 

Not at all, government has strict controls over how much alcohol content is in each drink, how much a person can serve another person and how you buy it (in Cleveland you can't buy hard liquor with your credit card). The unregulated booze that was coming out during prohibition was much more dangerous and volatile than what you can get now.

 

As for people abusing the laws, that's true in EVERYTHING. It's hardly symptomatic of alcohol.

steroids even at prescription doses may cause psychosis and psychotic patients may pose a threat to themselves or society at large.

Ok, I will accept that, I am no doctor.  So if that is a reason to keep it illegal, does that then apply to Marijuana?

Marijuana Doubles Risk of Schizophrenia

Study shows Marijuana causes Psychosis.

Professors Say Smoking Marijuana Can Cause Psychosis ...

 

 

As for people abusing the laws, that's true in EVERYTHING. It's hardly symptomatic of alcohol.

Or drugs, you are correct in saying everything.