Man how boring is this Congressional Hearing???

[moochman]

There's simply no comparison between alcohol and steroids...

This is the first point you guys have made. I can't believe you'd spend so much energy on a pointless hypothetical premise. Let's extrapolate your arguement. You say that given a choice you'd rather a teen take the steroid than the alcohol. More harm has been done to teens with alcohol than steroids, hence less risk of injury with the steroids.
Okay. Now lets add something that harms teens more than alcohol. Driving cars. You would rather teens grab the alcohol at the party than grab the car keys. Automobiles cause more harm to teens than alcohol, hence alcohol is the prefered choice?

See, I got sucked in and wasted time debating this useless point. That one may be worse than the other doesn't matter because they are unrelated.

[Phatferd]

Which is more dangerous, a disease that impacts 20 million people and kills 10% of them or a disease that impacts 10 people with 50% mortality? Which one do you want to prevent? While both are important and dangerous, the sole measure of danger is not simply the one you want to use. That would cause public health officials to ignore a disease that kills 2 million people simply because it has a lower mortality rate.

I am pretty sure my point (maybe Lofunzo, can't speak for him) is that percentage wise steroids are worse, and yes alcohol is a bigger issue in total numbers, but from my standpoint, we need to nip steroid abuse in the butt because we cannot let the number of users grow.

If we allow steroid use to grow that means more and more are being hurt from steroids and if you get the number of steroid users up to the number of alcohol users, we would have a lot bigger issue on our hands. The point is steroids cause more harm to its own users than alcohol, and we need to prevent steroids use from getting to that point.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

There's simply no comparison between alcohol and steroids...

This is the first point you guys have made. I can't believe you'd spend so much energy on a pointless hypothetical premise. Let's extrapolate your arguement. You say that given a choice you'd rather a teen take the steroid than the alcohol. More harm has been done to teens with alcohol than steroids, hence less risk of injury with the steroids.
Okay. Now lets add something that harms teens more than alcohol. Driving cars. You would rather teens grab the alcohol at the party than grab the car keys. Automobiles cause more harm to teens than alcohol, hence alcohol is the prefered choice?

See, I got sucked in and wasted time debating this useless point. That one may be worse than the other doesn't matter because they are unrelated.

The number of deaths linked to alcohol is more than twice as large as the number linked to vehicle accidents even before you remove the 1/3rd of accident deaths where alcohol was the primary cause.

The number of deaths caused by alcohol among teens is approximately equal to the number of vehicle deaths where alcohol was not involved.

And the other net social costs of alcohol far dwarf the net social costs of driving.

So, the premise of your argument is flawed.

[moochman]

There's simply no comparison between alcohol and steroids...

This is the first point you guys have made. I can't believe you'd spend so much energy on a pointless hypothetical premise. Let's extrapolate your arguement. You say that given a choice you'd rather a teen take the steroid than the alcohol. More harm has been done to teens with alcohol than steroids, hence less risk of injury with the steroids.
Okay. Now lets add something that harms teens more than alcohol. Driving cars. You would rather teens grab the alcohol at the party than grab the car keys. Automobiles cause more harm to teens than alcohol, hence alcohol is the prefered choice?

See, I got sucked in and wasted time debating this useless point. That one may be worse than the other doesn't matter because they are unrelated.

The number of deaths linked to alcohol is more than twice as large as the number linked to vehicle accidents even before you remove the 1/3rd of accident deaths where alcohol was the primary cause.

The number of deaths caused by alcohol among teens is approximately equal to the number of vehicle deaths where alcohol was not involved.

And the other net social costs of alcohol far dwarf the net social costs of driving.

So, the premise of your argument is flawed.

No, the premise of my arguement was that your premise was incorrect given that there is no collabrative evidence that suggests a relationship in the use/abuse of alcohol and the use/abuse of steroids. Your agruement is flawed in that it has nothing to do with the original issue proposed, and has nothing to do with reality.

But following your logic strand if teens didn't drive then less would die or get injured than would those who used alcohol.