Definition of a Drug Offender

It was not until recently; I became aware that “drug offenders” are given an alternative rather then jail time.  As I was reading I came across an article called Expanded Road to Recovery project to reduce drug crimes by Charles Hamilton. The article was about how Governor George Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joseph L Bruno created a plan to clean up the streets ofNew York. According to Charles Hamilton, the 2.8 million dollar project “is an expansion on the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program (DTAP)”.   The DTAP is a program that gives drug offenders an alternative rather than sending them to jail and not providing them with the help they need. To understand the DTAP’s goal, we first need to agree what we mean by the term “Drug Offender.”

Although it turns out that all states have their own definition of drug offenders, many states’ definition of drug offender are closely similar. According to many state statues, a drug offender can be defined as any one who distributes, processes, or is dependant on a drug. When Governor George Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joseph L Bruno spoke about “Drug Offenders” in the article, they meant people who are dependant on a drug. These people are also known as drug abusers or people who abuse drugs.  For example, in the state ofNew Jerseyaccording to New Jersey Statutes Annotated Title 2C:35B-3 Definitions, drug dealer liability is defined as,

a. “Marketing of controlled dangerous substances” means the illegal distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to distribute, a specified controlled dangerous substance.

b. “Individual user of controlled dangerous substance” means the individual whose illegal use of a specified controlled dangerous substance is the basis of an action brought under this act.

In other words, inNew Jerseythere are different definitions of what a drug offender is, one being the drug dealer themselves and another one being the drug abuser.

Another example of a different state’s definition of drug offender isOhio’s definition.Ohiohas four different definitions of what a drug offender is. According to LAWriter Ohio Law and Rules, one of the definitions is “(B) ‘Drug dependent person’.” In other words, inOhiosomeone who abuses drugs is indeed a drug offender. Although all states have many different definitions of what a drug offender is, most of the definitions somewhere along the lines include being a drug abuser.

With that being said, the DTAP’s mission is to clean up their streets by preventing drug offenders or drug abusers from falling back to their old life styles. The DTAP only help drug abusers or people who need medical help with drugs because other drug offenders such as drug dealers do not need help with drugs. When drug abusers fall back into their old life styles, they give drug dealers the ability to stay in business. Governor George Pataki and Senate Joseph L Bruno hope that by cleaning up drug abusers they will put drug dealers out of business, reduce crime and reduce the money taxpayers spend on putting drug offenders away.  People who choose DTAP as their alterative are less likely to return to prison and are also more likely to be employed. The plan gives drug offenders the opportunity to lead their life in a more positive direction.

Sources:

New Jersey Statutes Annotated Title 2C:35B-3 Definitions

LAWriters Ohio Laws and Rules

Hamilton Jr., Charles. “Expanded Road to Recovery Project to Reduce Drug Crimes.” New York Amsterdam News, Nov. 2003. Web. Mar. 2012.

The Game of Numbers

The term sabermetrics will not mean anything to people who do not know about baseball, but to those who do know about baseball this term changed the game. Sabermetrics is the statistical analysis of baseball. There are statistics that players will get paid millions for such as home runs, earned run average, and batting average. Some statistics are over looked, and will win a team a game such as one statistic which is RE24 which is defined as “runs above the average by the 24 base/out states,”(Appelman 1). The 24 base/out states are all situations that can happen on a baseball field while up at bat in a given inning. Another way to look at it would be whether there is zero outs and there can be no men on base,  a man on first base, there can be a man on second base, a man  on third base, men on first and second base, men on first and third base, men on second and third base, or bases loaded. Those are eight situations all those situations can happen with one outs or even two outs so if you add all those situations together that would be 24 base/out situations. That is just what RE24 means, there is another meaning for the actual statistic and how to calculate it. The RE24 is “the difference in run expectancy (RE) between the start of the play and the end of the play. That difference is then credited/debited to the batter and the pitcher,” (Appelman 1).

RE24 may be compared to other statistics such as ERA (Earned Run Average), but there is a difference between these two statistics. ERA is “the number of runs earned multiplied by 9 and then divided by the number of innings pitched,” (“Calculate”  1). As people can see between the two statistics ERA is found over nine innings, while the RE24 is calculated by every at bat and situation that a pitcher or batter could be in and over all of the situations in the game they are added together to get their RE24 for that game. The statistic RE24 will win games for your team. It can be considered a “winning statistic” because if your team has a RE24  percentage than the team you are playing against you will win the game. Every game has this statistic, and it is for pitchers, and batters. The batters have the opportunity to ruin the other team’s statistic, but that is where the competition happens, it is the pitchers against the batters. The batters also have the opportunity to increase their RE24 by getting hits off of pitchers when they have runners on base and by increasing their RE24 they decrease the pitcher’s RE24.  This  “winning statistic” shows up in every game, but I will give you examples from two  specific World Series which are the 2002 World Series between the Anaheim Angels and San Francisco Giants and the 2003 World Series between the Florida Marlins and New York Yankees. These two World Series demonstrate the teams’ RE24 average in each game and whoever had the better average won the game no matter if the team had a team of all-stars and the other team had role players such as the New York Yankees vs. Florida Marlins.

The 2002 World Series between the Anaheim Angels and San Francisco Giants had two good teams with players that had roles and players that were all stars also such as Barry Bonds of the Giants who would go on to break the Major League Baseball home run record later in his career.  For game one  pitchers for the Giants had an RE24 of 1.9 while the Angels had an RE24 of 0.9 the Giants went on to win this game 4-3. The pitchers that messed up the team average for the Angels were Jarrod Washburn who had an RE24 of -0.9, and Scott Shoeneweiss who had an RE24 of -0.3, Shoeneweiss had come in the eighth inning faced one batter and walked him then got taken out. Game two had the Giants losing to the Angels 10-11, the Giants had an RE24 of  -6.7 while the Angels had an RE24 of -5.1. Game three had the Angels beating the Giants by a score of 10-4, the Angels had an RE24 of 0.2 while the Giants had an RE24 of  -5.8. Starting pitcher for the Giants Livan Hernandez contributed with an RE24 of -3.5. Game four had the Giants defeating the Angels 4-3, the Giants had an RE24 of 1.2, while the Angels had an RE24 of -0.2 with starting pitcher John Lackey contributing an average of -0.6. A big part of that average happened in the bottom of the fifth inning where Lackey gave up three runs, four hits, and faced eight batters that inning. Game five had the Giants defeating the Angels by a score of 16-4. The Giants had an RE24 of 0.2 while the Angels had an RE24 of -12.2. Three pitchers for the Angels had very bad averages they were Jarrod Washburn who had an RE24 of -4.1, Ben Weber who had an RE24 of -4.0, and Scott Shields who had an RE24 of -4.6. Jarrod Washburn gave up six runs on five hits in the first two innings, in the bottom of the seventh inning Ben Weber gave up four runs on four hits, and Scott Shields gave up four runs on three hits in the bottom of the eighth inning. In Game six had the Giants losing to the Angels by a score of 3-4 the Giants had an RE24 of -1.7 while the Angels had an RE24 of -0.1. The series came down to game seven where the Giants lost to the Angels by a score of 1-4, the Giants had an RE24 of  0.4 while the Angels had an RE24 of 3.9. (“2002 World Series Anaheim Angels vs. San Francisco Giants” 1).

According to baseballreference.com RE24 was an important statistic in the 2003 World Series, and it was as well in the 2003 World Series between the Florida Marlins and New York Yankees. In game one the Marlins defeated the Yankees 3-2 , the Marlins had an RE24 of 2.8 while the Yankees had an RE24 of 1.8, the Yankees pitchers did not have anyone over a 1.0 average while the Marlins had two pitchers with averages of 1.1 who were Dontrelle Willis, and the Marlins closer Uguetha Urbina. In game two the Florida Marlins lost to the Yankees by a score of 1-6, the Marlins had an RE24 of -1.7 while the Yankees had an RE24 of 3.8. The Marlins starter Mark Redman had an RE24 of -3.3, he had problems in the bottom of the first giving up three runs on two hits, while the Yankees starter Andy Pettitte had an RE24 of 3.3. In game three the Marlins lost to the Yankees by a score of 1-6. The Marlins had an RE24 of -1.4 while the Yankees had an RE24 of 3.6. The Marlin’s starter Josh Beckett had an RE24 of 2.4, but the closer Braden Looper had an RE24 of -2.5 which happened in the top of the ninth inning where he gave up four runs on two hits. The Yankees starting pitcher Mike Mussina had an RE24 of 2.6. In game four the Marlins defeated the Yankees by a score of 4-3. The Marlins had an Re24 of 3.1 while the Yankees had a RE24 of 1.6. Contributing to the Marlins average were starting pitcher Carl Pavano with an RE24 of 3.1 and closer Braden Looper who had an RE24 of 2.1. In game five the Marlins defeated the Yankees by a score of 6-4. The Marlins had an RE24 of 0.6 while the Yankees had an RE24 of -1.9. In game six the Marlins won the World Series with a score of 2-0 . The Marlins had Josh Beckett pitch a complete game shutout and his RE24 was 4.8, the Yankees had an RE24 of 2.8. (“2003 World Series Florida Marlins vs. New York Yankees” 1). 

Both World Series show how the team with the better RE24 for that game will win the game. This statistic can be tracked for players over a whole season, and that would be very beneficial for scouts and also managers to know about. This statistic is important because it shows the  situations that the pitcher was in and also how they got out of it or how it hurt the team by either letting up a hit, a walk, or a run. This statistic shows a pitcher’s or batter’s situation hitting or pitching. This statistic is not all fool proof although, this statistic does not count into effect if the player is on a hot streak or cold streak. From watching baseball, and playing it competitively I can tell that at some points in the season a player can go on a streak that he cannot get a hit if the pitcher underhanded the ball to him. Players can also go on streaks that they will hit the ball every single at bat. The game of baseball is like that, it is a game of streaks most players find their streak throughout the season and they only have a month or so of cold streaks, but looking at the statistics the managers and scouts do not get to consider the streaking factor. The statistic RE24 also does not prove that the underdog has a better chance of winning than the favorite team. It is based on the players on each team and the situations that they are in and the outcomes of the situations. If you have an all star player against a player that is not known either player can come out with a better RE24, the all star player can get struck-en out or hit into an out, an all star player can also strike the not known player out or hit a home run. The possibilities are endless. The statistic will not tell that the underdog has a better chance of doing anything, it is solely based on the situation and whatever outcome happens.

Works Cited

Appelman, David. “Get to Know: RE24.” Web log post. Baseball Statistics and Analysis. 14 Mar. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.

“Calculate Earned Run Average.” Basic- Mathematics.com. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.

“2002 World Series Anaheim Angels vs. San Francisco Giants.” Baseball-Reference.com. Web. 01 Mar. 2012.

“2003 World Series Florida Marlins vs. New York Yankees.” Baseball-Reference.com. Web. 01 Mar. 2012.

Often the terms used to describe the process of embryonic stem cell research are confused with one another.  This confusing terminology can be easily exploited by anti-abortion politicians and similar political groups in order to win favor with the public.   In this short paper I will attempt to distinguish between the terms “embryonic stem cell” and simply “stem cell” in order to aptly define all the terms I will use in my research paper.  The addition of a single word has some serious implications.  Embryonic stem cells, as one might guess are derived from a human embryo.  However there is some confusion surrounding the precise definition of “embryo” compared to a fertilized cell, also known as a zygote.  A zygote is the single cell that forms the instant of fertilization commonly called conception.  An embryo is formed from the process of cell division as the fertilized egg (zygote) matures.  This is where the cells used in embryonic stem cell research are derived.  In humans, the zygote forms an embryo thirteen days after fertilization (Campbell 1034).  In short an embryo is a multi-celled zygote.  A third stage of development is of course the fetus which is the term used to call the maturing embryo after about ten weeks, this is the stage where human like features develop.  As we can see a fertilized egg and an embryo are not the same, they are very similar but, in the thirteen days of maturation the zygote undergoes subtle changes that make the embryo so valuable in the field of regenerative medicine.

Now that the scientific definition of an embryo has been established, it is possible to examine the scientific differences between stem cells from an embryo and those harvested from other sources.   There are many methods by which stem cells can be obtained including those derived from adult cells, prenatal cells (umbilical cord), and bioengineered cells (produced in a lab).  The derivation of adult cells is accomplished through the removal of bone marrow or adipose (fat) tissues.  Prenatal cells are taken from the umbilical cord blood cells or amniotic fluid.  Bioengineered stem cells are created in a lab from somatic cells (almost all body cells) which undergo complex and arduous scientific techniques in the form of either cloning, or induced pluripotency.  Cellular potency is the term used to describe the ability of a stem cell to differentiate into its surrounding cells.  All of these methods require some form of alteration or procedure to yield usable stem cells, in the case of using adult cells it is often a very long and painful outpatient procedure.  Embryonic stem cells differ from these types of cells in three extremely important ways.  In contrast to these methods, embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner core of the embryo itself which requires little to no processing to obtain.  Secondly, the stem cells taken from a human embryo are more pluripotent than other stem cells.  This means that they are able to differentiate into different tissues faster and with greater accuracy.  Lastly, and most importantly, embryonic stem cells have the capability to differentiate into all tissues in the human body, no other type of stem cell has this unique ability.  Adult stem cells are only able to differentiate into a certain number of tissues depending on their origin and lab induced pluripotent cells still lack the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells.  (Zacharias, David G. et al. pg 637-638)

To put this into more understandable terms it is easiest to look at real world examples.  Adult stem cells taken from either bone marrow or adipose tissue are only capable of differentiating into either bone/cartilage cells or adipose tissue respectively.  Prenatal stem cells are often useful in several applications but again lack the range that embryonic cells offer.  Finally bioengineered cells can offer an alternative to embryonic stem cells, albeit an inferior alternative.  The field of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells is far more complex than that of embryonic stem (ES) cells, which leads to a loss of efficiency in the final product cell as well as a decreased functionality as compared to ES cells.  It is most useful to use stem cells derived from an embryo because they are able to create any type of tissue found in the human body.

It is important to remember that the source of the stem cell affects its properties throughout the entire life of the cell.  It is also important to remember that when this type of regenerative medicine is involved, often a human life is at stake.  In other words, using an inferior type of stem cell can lead to death.  Embryos are unique in that they contain the basis for each type of tissue in the human body, due to the fact that if they had been allowed to mature they would in fact eventually become a full human body.  The importance of embryonic stem cell research as compared to other stem cell research is exemplified in a quote from a Mayo Clinic Proceedings article: “iPS researcher Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte, ‘ES cells are needed to understand the basic mechanism of pluripotency and self-renewal. As such, it is out of the question to even suggest phasing them out. We will be lost without them.’” (Zacharias, David G. et al. pg 637)

In defining the types of stem cells, the political and moral angles must also be addressed.  The issue that embryonic stem cells face morally and politically is that of defining exactly when a cluster of cells is called a human being.  This issue is similar to that of the abortion issue which was highly debated just a few years ago.  For example in almost all cases it is legal in the United States for a pregnant woman to receive a late term abortion, that is to terminate her pregnancy up to the 24^th week of pregnancy, sometimes even longer.  At this state of gestation limbs, eyes and organs are almost fully developed yet it is not deemed a human being and can be terminated (Campbell 1015).  But the government has decided to ban any research which destroys an embryo only 13 days from fertilization.   Morally defining an embryo is crucial because of the laws which initiated the ban.  With almost no development save for the production of a few membranes, an embryo should not be considered a human or living in any way.  With a redefining of an embryo, the government could lift its ban on embryonic stem cell research and open the gates to discovering cures for deadly diseases.

Works Cited

What Will Become of Embryonic Stem Cells Zacharias, David G. et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Jul 2011) pgs. 634-638 Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

Reece, Jane B., and Neil A. Campbell. Biology. Eighth ed. Boston: Benjamin Cummings, 2011. Pgs (1015-1034) Print.

Americans have always been worried about their weight and physical appearance. Women began to want to be “skinny” ever since Twiggy began to dominate the modeling industry, and sexy curves took its appeal with Marilyn Monroe. Men began to start working out and obtaining muscle mass with the appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, the importance of being within healthy ranges has only become a rising trend when the Surgeon General David Satcher announced that America was the most obese nation, stating that Americans had the highest BMI internationally.

This new spike in maintaining healthy weights began in 2001 when Satcher announced that American obesity was becoming an epidemic and that the USA was the worlds most obese nation. The Surgeon General and his team defined America’s obesity by the Body Mass Index (BMI) a nearly perfect system that measures the amount of fat, the flabby tissue that gives a person their out of shape appearance, a person has in comparison to their height and weight; “BMI is calculated as weight in pounds divided by the square of the height in inches, multiplied by 703. Alternatively, BMI can be calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters (The Lancet).” Although the system is faulty in some areas, most medical professionals deem it an accurate method of measurement. A BMI over 25 is considered to be overweight, signaling that a person has more fat than he or she is supposed to have. When the Surgeon General made his announcement in 2001, Americans were considered to be overweight with a cumulative BMI of approximately 41.5.

But, the BMI system has various limitations that were not taken into account during the Surgeon General’s announcement. Research has proven that although the BMI measurements claim to measure body fat, it does not do so as directly as people think. For example, the system can overestimate the amount of fat in a person(s) who is muscular and underestimate the amount of a person(s) who have lost muscle mass, such as the elderly.

In adolescents, obesity is defined as age and gender specific or, as anyone ranking above the 95th percentile range in the CDC BMI-for-age-growth charts. These charts easily assess a child’s BMI by comparing their height and weight growth yearly. A child’s percentile ranking is relative to the ranking of other growing adolescents in the same age and gender grouping. These charts not only help assess growing children who are overweight, but also underweight. Each child is supposed to be measured with the charts by their doctors during their yearly physical.

Since the Surgeon General Announced that America was the world’s most obese nation, there has been an abrupt change in the American culture to fix that. Not only has the government gotten involved in helping maintain and lower obesity levels in Americans, but there has been a growth in the amount of private intervention being put out by privately owned companies and non-profit organizations. Although the common thought would be that Americans want to be skinny (since being thin is the clear opposite of being obese) the most commonly used point during the fight against obesity has been to do it in a healthy manor.

One of the most important factors in fighting obesity is government intervention, or actions taken by the government in order to affect the decisions made by individuals on either economic or social matters. Due to the fact that people highly value their privacy and ability to make their own decisions, government intervention into the personal lives of the public is constantly being called into question: how far can the government go?

The government has already intervened into the every day lives of Americans; they have done this so much and so well that people hardly notice it anymore. For example the federal government constantly intervenes in the lives of Americans by installing traffic lights, setting curfew laws, and creating school curriculums. But, when the Surgeon General made his announcement about obesity, the general public rejected the early attempts to regulate the nations obesity levels. Weight, is a personal issue and for a while, a great deal of people felt that it was too personal for government intervention. However, the public has overtime become accustomed and more aware of the obesity epidemic, primarily to both government and private intervention.

A major issue with the government trying to reduce the and maintain the current levels of obesity in America is the fact that their intervention would have to surpass the economic states of some areas of the countries. People residing in lower income areas tend to maintain higher obesity levels due to the simple fact that eating healthy is expensive. In most low income places, a 12 pack of Cosmic Brownies is equivalent to the price of about two packages of grapes. So, naturally, to save money, people tend to eat more fattening foods.  In places such as this, there is also less money being given to school districts where there are less healthy alternatives for students to eat during lunch and snack time. The government, along with many private companies and non-profit organizations have been pushing for more natural grown foods in schools, such as fruits and vegetables, and healthier options to be provided for students, pretzels as opposed to cookies. Many companies have been donating money to get healthier options for students to eat and providing money for these options to become more accessible and affordable.

Leading Medical Journal, The Lancet, states the government should be responsible for making healthy foods cheeper and affordable stating that they should be easily accessible at both private and public schools along with public universities. So, a possibility to increase health the over all health in the general public would be to produce cheeper produce and for the government to fund more home-grown produce, such as establishing new farms and giving money to already existing ones. If fresh produce is more affordable, there is a possibility that they will become more desirable and regularly consumed. An issue with this would be that this idea would be opposing foreign trade and would be slightly more costly.

One of the toughest forms of intervention is trying to influence the private sphere of people. The private sphere is a space known only to the person who possesses it; it contains their thoughts, desires and knowledge. Republicans feel that there should be little to no government involvement into this realm while Democrats feel that there should be a great deal of intervention. But with an issue such as obesity, something needs to be done.

Bureaucrats cannot sit down with every family during every meal to make sure good eating habits are being enforced and proper exercise routines are being followed.  One possible way of doing this, according Kersh and Monroe, is to create an even stronger sense of social disapproval. The idea is to alter the current social atmosphere and have fast food chains, and other fattening foods, be thought of as highly unacceptable and even detrimental to the overall health of a person. Supersize Me, a documentary study about McDonald’s and other fast corporations, has already given out a simple form of social disapproval: fast food makes you fat. Since the documentary was released, there has been a dramatic chance in the way the fast food industry was run. They are now required to provide a list of how many calories are in each of their options; many companies are now offering low calorie meals; and there is no longer the “supersize” option at most fast food establishments. There needs to be a greater emphasis on eating healthy as opposed to the alternative.

But, according to Kersh and Monroe, furthering social disapprovals should conducted similarly to the way the government and other organizations made drugs and alcohol appear socially unacceptable: through the flow of information. So, they suggest that another positive form of influence to public behavior can be achieved through medical-science which means allowing people to know facts about being overweight and what it means to be physically fit. According to the two, the facts do not have to be entirely accurate; the idea is to convey the true message that being overweight is not good and will soon be socially unacceptable. Also, people should be able to get help outside of the gym, according to the authors, who want there to be group meetings similar to meetings set up for drug addicts. The demon user/ industry effect is to influence Americans to feel like people who eat poorly and industries that promote poor health habits are “demons,” or inherently bad. Surprisingly, it is easier than it seems to put a demonic spin on negative foods.

In 2009, leading expert in childhood obesity Robert Lusting’s lecture, “Sugar: the Bitter Truth,” got over 800 thousand views on YouTube with a viewer growth rate rate of approximately 50 thousand views a month. The hour and a half long speech persuasively lists sugar as a toxin and a poison and often refers to it as evil. Toxic sugar is not only the common white household substance, scientifically known as sucrose, but also high-fructose corn syrup, which Lusting calls the “most demonizing addictive known to man (Taubes, Gary).” Not only does sugar provide consumers with empty calories, calories that provide no nutritional value, but can cause numerous health issues such as obesity, hypertension and diabetes. However, this is not to say that people should not be eating positive sugars: the sugars that come from fruits, vegetables and whole grains that provide antioxidants, energy and often enzymes that encourage a natural boost in metabolism, leading to weight loss. Foods that contain toxic sugars, such as anything processed, from a fast food restaurant, and many desserts should be avoided.

Since Americans have acknowledged their growing obesity problem, there has been a rapid increase in the over all health of the American Public and a decline in the nations average BMI. According to a study conducted by one of the top medical journals, The Lancet, as a follow up to the study produced by the Surgeon General in 2001, when modern international BMIs are compared, America is not even in the top 10. America has lost its perviously held number one spot to the small nation of Nauru. Over the last decade or so, the push for government intervention and personal motivation to get fit, and healthy has paid off. While American men are rated 10th on the international BMI scale, American women are ranked 36th with a BMI of 28.7. This is proof that, obesity can be sustained and maintained at its current levels and even prevented for the future.

The truth is, it is very hard to influence the public and personal sphere of America. But, if it is reached, it is possible that obesity can be maintained at its current levels and even possibly decreased and one day stopped.

Works cited:

“About Body Mass Index for Children and Teens.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/childrens_bmi/about_childrens_bmi.html>.

“Changing the Future of Obesity: Science, Policy, and Action.” : The Lancet. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60815-5/fulltext>.

“Health Affairs.” The Politics Of Obesity: Seven Steps To Government Action. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/6/142.full>.

“Scarsdale Diet – The Complete Scarsdale Medical Diet.” Scarsdale Diet. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://www.scarsdalediet.com/>.

Taubes, Gary. “Is Sugar Toxic?” NY Times Online. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all>.

“The Surgeon General’s Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity.” Surgeon General. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. <http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/1_1.html>

“US Loses Its Fat Supremacy.” LiveScience.com. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://www.livescience.com/11825-global-obesitiy-united-states-ranking.html>.

“US Loses Its Fat Supremacy.” LiveScience.com. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://www.livescience.com/11825-global-obesitiy-united-states-ranking.html

Beneficial Steroids

Steroids could result in a multitude of benefits for baseball as a sport and the individuals. Anabolic steroids will increase the number of home runs from sluggers. They will also help some of the best pitchers throw faster and possible result in an increase of no hitters or perfect games thrown. The use of anabolic steroids in baseball will make it a more flashy and interesting sport.

It is no secret that an increase in home run production will excite fans more and more. Anabolic steroids could make this happen if they became legal. Taking steroids causes someone to gain more muscle mass when combined with working out. A gain in muscle mass results in faster bat speed (“The Possible Effect of Steroids on Home Run Production”). A batter taking steroids has a faster bat speed that causes the batted ball speed to increase(“The Possible Effect of Steroids on Home Run Production”). It is obvious that an increased batted ball speed will cause the ball to go farther off the bat. Which in turn means more home runs.

Some critics may say that allowing steroid use to be legal will not increase the number of home runs hit because it will allow pitchers to throw harder, making it harder to make contact. But, this is not the case for all pitchers. A pitcher needs more than just some muscle mass to throw a hard fast ball. Even with steroids a pitcher needs high quality mechanics and pin point execution to throw the ball harder and accurate. This means that steroids will not necessarily make every pitcher more difficult to hit. These critics will only be right for the already top-notch and hard to hit pitchers. For an average, run of the mill pitcher taking steroids will make them throw harder, but that alone will not make them impossible to hit. Nobody is an amazing pitcher at that level with just a hard fastball. In order to be among the best a pitcher needs control and a whole arsenal of pitches no matter how hard they throw. It is even reasonable to say that pitchers on steroids will result in more homeruns. The harder the ball comes in, the faster it goes out. The increased bat speed that steroids cause will allow hitters to capitalize on every mistake a pitcher makes. Increased bat speed will make up for the increased speed of the pitches.

Along with the benefits anabolic steroids bring to the sluggers of baseball comes the benefits to the aces of baseball. A pitcher has a lot to gain from taking anabolic steroids. Upper tier pitchers have even more to gain then other pitchers. Taking steroids will allow pitchers to throw harder than they ever could before (Olney). This increase in speed combined with what they already bring to the table will give some pitchers an edge over batters. For instance, Cliff Lee on steroids would be unhittable. Some pitchers being almost unhittable would cause fans to be excited and add to the fan base of baseball. Increased speed in pitches is not the only benefit a pitcher receives from taking steroids. Throwing a baseball is extremely straining and unnatural on a pitchers arm. Using steroids will enhance tissue repair so a pitcher will feel better the day after pitching (Olney). This is a huge benefit to pitchers and may result in the best pitchers being able to throw more often with the reduce soreness to their arms.

Critics may say that hitting home runs more often could make it less exciting when someone hits a homerun. This is not true considering the fact that a homerun hit in any close game thrilling. No one complains about someone hitting too many homeruns. Also, it will result in more intense home run races that bring millions of fans to baseball. Anabolic steroids will make the chances of having another epic home run race like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire had more likely. Another thing critics may say is that fans will not be interested in  baseball if steroid use is legal because it’s cheating. But, this argument can be put to rest very simply. If steroid use is legal than it wouldn’t be cheating at all. If fans actually had a serious problem with steroids they would already be against baseball since it has become apparent that many of baseball’s recent all-stars have used steroids.

The tons of player that brought so many fans to possible and have used steroids add to the proof that steroids benefit baseball. Manny Ramirez, suspended for steroid use (“Baseball’s Steroid Era”), brought tons of fans to baseball for years before he retired. Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, who both admitted to using steroids (“Baseball’s Steroid Era”), both brought interest to baseball and were many people’s favorite baseball players for a long time. These are all specific cases and proof of how steroids have already added fans and interest to the sport of baseball. Critics to this point will say that they brought fans before it was known that they cheated by using steroids. This is easily proven wrong when you look at a case like Barry Bonds. When Barry Bonds first got drafted he was skinny and stole bases. Later in his career Barry was significantly bigger and even his head seemed bigger. Anyone who seem him early in his career could tell that he took steroids. Regardless he still brought millions of fans to baseball because of his amazing accomplishments. This shows that fans ignored the fact that he took steroids and still followed him through his career. This is proof that either fans don’t care about steroids or they’re not devoted fans and just want to see something spectacular.

In conclusion, there are multiple benefits of allowing anabolic steroid use in baseball bring. Both pitchers throwing more shutouts and no hitters and batters hitting more home runs will benefit baseball massively. If steroids can benefit baseball so much while it has been illegal, making it legal will just add to steroids helping baseball and make it less controversial. Therefore, we should allow professional athletes, who are all adults and capable of making decisions for themselves, decide whether or not they want to use steroids. It is no different then an adult deciding to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or anything else that has benefits and negative effects.

Works Cited

1. “Baseball’s Steroid Era.” Baseballssteroidera. Web. 07 Mar. 2012.

2. Olney, Buster. “WHY PITCHERS USE.” ESPN The Magazine. Web

3. Nathan, Alan M. “The Possible Effect of Steroids on Home Run Production.” Webusers. University of Illinois. Web.