Is it time to legalize steroids?
- 02-21-2004, 11:29 AM
Is it time to legalize steroids?
Is it time to legalize steroids?
It's certainly far too late to ban them
Friday, February 20, 2004
The more I read about the steroid scandal spreading across the nation from the Bay Area company BALCO, the more difficulty I have working up a good fit of outrage. I find myself wondering if the time has come to ask ourselves the radical question -- should we consider making performance- enhancing drugs legal in professional sports?
The facts are these, whether we are ready to acknowledge them or not:
Professional sports have evolved into cutthroat businesses in which performance is the only measure of worth. Athletes have increasingly turned to pharmaceuticals to push their performances to the highest and most rewarded levels. Athletes who abstain from the performance-enhancers risk falling below the ever-higher playing standards and thus risk losing their jobs. Teams and leagues are hardly vigilant about catching users, because the money pours in when paying customers and television executives watch near-mythic characters crush home runs or break downfield tackles.
Here's the final and most relevant fact: The drugs aren't going away, no matter how many rules are posted on locker room bulletin boards. The horse, folks, has left the barn.
"Players are willing to do whatever it takes to give themselves a chance to be competitive,'' said one NFL football coach who works in the Bay Area. "We've sold them the dream (of playing pro football) and then tell them if only they were 20 or 30 pounds heavier, they might make it. So if they're maxed out genetically at 215, they have to find another way to add the weight. ''
As I understand it, performance enhancers are illegal in sports for two primary reasons. One is the safety of the athletes. This is an important concern. Steroid abuse has been linked to all kinds of physical and mental problems, even death. Like most prescription drugs, steroids are dangerous when used improperly. But steroids and human growth hormone themselves are not "bad.'' Doctors prescribe them for any number of medical and cosmetic reasons.
So if you concede that these drugs are here to stay in sports, wouldn't the players be safer if they didn't go to backroom hucksters with no medical background but rather to doctors who can prescribe and supervise usage according to a player's medical history, physical condition and professional goals? This wouldn't guarantee that players would not suffer damage from the steroids. But wouldn't players be safer if a doctor thoroughly explained the pros and cons, the risks and benefits, and let the players make informed choices?
Also, if safety were so much of a concern, wouldn't we stop pumping football players full of cortisone and painkillers on the sidelines so they can play with broken arms and legs? Wouldn't we stop putting guys on football fields at all, for that matter? I'm willing to bet more football players have been irreparably damaged by simply playing the game than have been damaged by using steroids.
The other main reason performance-enhancing drugs are banned has to do with the integrity of the game. I hear this all the time, and I understand the argument. It would not be fair if "juiced'' players broke the records of old- time players who didn't have the benefit of performance-enhancers. We'd have to put asterisks by the records, some say. Perhaps they're right.
But I wonder how we take into account other advancements in equipment, medical know-how, physical conditioning and game strategies that give today's players advantages over their predecessors. Pitching, for instance, has become so specialized that closers rarely pitch more than an inning at a time, allowing them to rack up saves at rates unheard of in previous generations. Should there be asterisks by their records?
One could argue, actually, that making performance-enhancing drugs legal in professional sports would help the integrity of the game because the playing field would be more level. Every athlete would have access to pharmaceuticals. So players would find an edge over their competitors not in a syringe or a pill -- because everyone who wants the syringes and pills could have them -- but in their own talent and hard work.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush devoted several lines to what he perceives as a national crisis. "The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character,'' the president said.
But in today's pro sports, performance is more important than character, and no one in Washington knows that better than Bush, a former owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. He didn't hire players because they spent Thanksgiving dishing up food at a homeless shelter. He hired players because they could deliver and got rid of them when they didn't.
These are the times we live in, whether we want to say it out loud or not. These are times, too, in which consumer-driven prescription drugs are advertised on television for everything we want enhanced, from moods to erections. These are times in which adults can choose to undergo major surgery simply because they want thinner thighs or tighter jowls. Despite the risks of disfigurement and death, we allow them to make the choice.
So I'm wondering why professional athletes shouldn't have the same freedom to make informed choices and take managed risks for the sake of something as substantial as their livelihoods.
Having said all this, I admit to thinking about the future with some dread, knowing that every generation strives to top the one before it: What on earth will the sons and daughters of today's athletes have to do to surpass their superhero parents?
- 02-21-2004, 05:27 PM
- 02-21-2004, 05:50 PM
iS IT TIME TO LEGALIZE GEAR?
-**** yeah, where do I sign.....
Although, this is mainly one person's point of view, albeit not a very well-known paper. I wish I had a job as a journalist for an "against the grain newspaper" I'd let 'em have it...
02-21-2004, 05:51 PM
no its not time to legalize steroids.
The use of steroids is already rampant, and with legalizing steroids, the use will definitely increase and the respect for steroids will be lost. Right now, because they are illegal, people are almost forced to research about them, read about theire sides and take precautions. Once they are legalized, the respect will be lost and consequentlty the abuse and the side effects from that will come into mainstream.
For those who argue that cigarettes and alcohol are legal yet they can cause more damage, well just because one health risk is legal, it doesnt give us the right to demand into putting another health risk into the legal market. Because thats exactly what steroids are - health risks.
Now most of us have researched/read enough to know that steroids are harmful if abused and what precautions to take, hence, we have RESPECT for steroid use. Now imagine if they were legal; any 21 year old will try to obtain them without going through what we did and hence not doing research.
Steroids, when used properly can be very effective, but legalizing them will just cause people to lose respect and hence abuse.
Think about it, right now, them being illegal, we were forced to research, find honest sources and make sure everything will be ok. Once they are legal, who will care to actually do any background reading before purchasing and pinning !
02-21-2004, 06:04 PM
the issue is not "legal" or "illegal". the issue is that steroids are controlled substances. They ARE legal - with a script. A good argument should be made that they should be legend drugs - iow, prescription required - but NOT a controlled substance. And MD's would be a lot more willing to prescribe them if there were not so many restrictions and if they were not Schedule III controlled substances, as they are now. Most states generally prohibit prescribing them for "aesthetic" or "muscle building" reasons (absent pathologies requiring muscle and tissue growth - such as burn recovery). These restrictions would also be lifted, or should be, if steroids were prescription, but not controlled. Birth control pills for example, are legend - RX required, but not Controlled Substances. If steroids were prescription (but not controlled) possession w.o a script would be a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, not a felony. Sales, by non-licensed individuals, would still be a felony in most jurisdictions. When the Anabolic Steroid Control act of 1990 was passed, the AMA, the DEA etc. were AGAINST making steroids controlled. However, it was the sports lobby that pushed it through. Considering the lack of toxicity of steroids, their relative safety, their lack of addictiveness (at least from a pure physical addiction standpoint), the impossibility of overdose, etc. there are excellent arguments that they should be Rx but not controlled. IMO, making them Over the Counter would be a bad idea. Simply put, imo, steroids should not be controlled (Schedule III). However, they should be Rx required.
Also, if they were Rx only, and not controlled, they would generally fall under the FDA, not the DEA. On the federal side.
These are better terms to use than "legal" or "illegal" since steroids ARE legal IF you have a script.
And of course, with a loosening of restrictions on scripts (from controlled to Rx only), a greater # of MD's would specialize in steroid therapy or steroids FOR aesthetic enhancement, and individuals could take them under medical supervision, with the required blood tests, PSA's, etc. This is already happening, to an extent, with some HRT MD's.
02-21-2004, 06:10 PM
02-21-2004, 06:14 PM
question on this point, in Canada, arent steroids legal with a script and are NOT controlled substances ? I know the laws in Canada are much more laxed than in the USA, anyone know any details on this ?Originally Posted by jjjd
02-21-2004, 07:08 PM
the laws in canada are more lax in SOME respects, and more severe in other. simply put, they are different. i don't know how they treat AAS in particular, but in general - their drug laws are different. for example, codeine is OTC in canada, but is schedule III here. otoh, they have MUCH tighter restrictions on supplements, basically banning sale of ALL prohormones, and also yohimbine and many other supps, iirc.
canada is MUCH more lenient vis a vis marijuana. otoh, they do not recognize anywhere NEAR the free speech rights that we do, and they do not have true constitutional protection of rights, since so called const. rights can be "overridden" by "parliamentary override".
canada also has a much more federalist system. iow, they have far more centralized control, and they also have a national police force (RCMP). we do not. FBI is not a true "police" agency. ditto for DEA, etc. and all our federal agencies have very limited jurisdiction, whereas RCMP do not. many canadian criminal laws are federal that in our country, are on a state by state basis.
simply put, our states are FAR more autonomous than their provinces.
sorry i don't have an answer to your specific question, but i have done a lot of study on comparative law, in general, between the two countries.
02-21-2004, 07:15 PM
Yes, it is time. We (steroid Users) are the strongest members of our community, literally, why cant we break it down the same way the drunks did with alcohol, or the women did with orgasms?
Just think of the uprising, it would look like planet of the apes around here. Cause we would pass out the roids to keep our members strong. Membership has its privileges. Free the roids
02-22-2004, 12:38 AM
Where the **** did this come from?Originally Posted by jjjd
Part I Section II of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?Originally Posted by jjjd
02-22-2004, 02:31 AM
yeah, i didnt understand that entire post either, but wanted to leave it alone because of my lack of knowledge in that area
02-22-2004, 03:18 AM
it comes from about 30 examples of case law. it is an issue of comparative const. law. canada simply does not recognize free speech to the extent we do.
if you doubt this, i suggest a quick trip to the CCLA (the canadian equivalent to the ACLU).
the fact of this is not controversial, only the reasons why. canada argues that civility trumps the freedom of people to express so called hateful or disparaging speech. in the US, the right to express 'hateful' or disparaging speech trumps civility.
do some research. it's not arguable. i thought it was relevant because it demonstrates (compare and contrast) some of the differences in our legal systems, and protections.
fwiw, I do know what I am talking about since i have been trained by both canadian and US legal experts in this area.
nobody argues that the differences exist. people only argue whether or not they SHOULD exist.
02-22-2004, 04:48 AM
If roids were legal you would be able to go to pharmacy and purchase them. Also doctors wouldn't mind advising and monitoring you while on because they are legal. You could then put them in a category just like cigaretes and alcohol and put an age limit on purchasing. Lose repect and not research? That doesn't make sense at all you "just because you found a source does not mean you will research the drug" period. A source could sell you the AIDS virus in a vial and you would not know the difference until after you injected and were infected. But attach a brand like Merk pharmaceauticals to the steroid and sell at your local drug store. I think I would trust a drug store and known brand name better than my illegal source. As far as abuse is concerned people abuse food by overeating every day and I know food is very legal. As with drinking and illicit drug use it all comes down to personal responsibility if you choose to abuse that's on you.
02-22-2004, 12:13 PM
rights and constitution ,yea right it was a good idea our forefathers had.
freedom of speech where u been . hate talk , hate crimes call a cop an "A"hole see what happens, freedoms are being taken away one by one, except for the ones that benefit the lobbyist. if abortion is legal ,getting fake tits is legal , booze ,cigaretes why then are steroids considered so bad, yet docs can prescribe some.
some signs of low test are swelling of legs ,low limbido, high cholesterol, higher weight, my point is docs now will prescdribe cholesterol med and weight loss meds and viagra but wont go for the real cause low test, why u ask lobbyist , they push all these other drugs for drug co's . why because they can sinsce they esssentialy have the power.so will steroids ever be unscheduled or even legal enough for athletes doudtful [ not if the lobbyist has anything to do wiyth it..ie drug co's, insureance co's and im sure there are others that will prosper keeping them banned and scheduled.
this is just my opinion on the way this country is being run, i am a true patriot and love my country but things need to change and go back to ,"FOR THE PEOPLE."
02-22-2004, 12:27 PM
oh yea, also side affescts they say steruoids have," OH REALLY", well read all the side affescts associated with all these quote safe meds.but let not forget that a doc told me once ,"the good outweigh the bad"...yea right whos opinion is that surely not mine.
02-23-2004, 01:13 AM
Move to Mexico..........
WalMart's (among others) in Mexico sell Sus, Deca, Primo preloads and an assortment of other goodies to anyone willing to buy them. No Script, No Dr., no Bull****! You have to go beyond the border cities, but after that your wish is but a retail store away. The price for a pre-load at WalMart is around the equivalent of $2.00 U.S.
02-24-2004, 01:39 PM
It's okay to legalize them as long someone gets a license to use them. It should be a privelage kinda like driving. I wouldn't want a bunch of crazy criminals using gear cause then the public would just cry to have them banned again since they'll make the association of steroids=criminal activity. They should only be available to anyone over 21 who passes a test so he/she can know how to use them appropriately.
BTW, I doubt it would happen. Bush has already demonized gear in the state of the union speech and I doubt some politician would have the balls to legalize them cause they'd probably commit political suicide by doing so.
02-24-2004, 02:08 PM
02-24-2004, 02:14 PM
Please. Next time before you decide to type:Originally Posted by jjjd
2) Think about what it is you are going to say
3) Stop again
4) Rethink what you are going to say.
5) Then shove it up your ass and smoke it.
Next time you think you understand Canada, our laws, provinces and what OUR constitution says do some research first.
Crazy I tell ya... crazy!
02-24-2004, 02:26 PM
I would not say our laws are more "laxed" in Canada. Health Canada have tight controls on everything. From my understanding, our controls are more stringent compared to that of the USA (FDA).
Ephedrine for, for example, was banned about 18 months ago in Canada. Not within SOME provinces BUT THROUGHOUT ALL PROVINCES.
Canada, again from my knoweldge and understanding, has a policy on steroidal compounds that say it is illegal to purchase and illegal to sell but possession is not illegal.
02-24-2004, 02:30 PM
Hmm... nobody argues the differences exist because, perhaps, Canada and the US *are* completely different?Originally Posted by jjjd
No one argues that differences between the US and Mexico exist either. Again, because they ARE different!
What.. what a concept, huh?
02-24-2004, 02:32 PM
02-24-2004, 02:33 PM
02-24-2004, 05:16 PM
houseman, you don't know what you are talking about.
research parliamentary override and get back to me.
research canada's passage of so-called "hate speech" laws (including the parliamentary comments and arguments) and get back to me.
it is a fact that
1) parliamenary override can negate any so-called constitutional right in canada. the override procedure is MUCH less restrictive than the US amendment procedure and requires far less to do
2) canada does not recognize a right to speech when that speech is disparaging, hateful, etc. in other words, if it demeans group identity etc. even if the speech can be shown to be true, that does not mitigate the criminality. this applies even to private phone conversations. it is all in the law. many websites for instance moved from canada to the US, to avoid prosecution.
these are facts. if you don't like them, tough. i suggest you consult with a civil rights attorney and he will school you.
02-24-2004, 05:25 PM
Okay guys I know this is starting to get political but get back to the subject at hand.. you remember..
Do you think it is time to legalize steroids?
02-24-2004, 06:46 PM
back to my point. what do you mean by "legalize"? do you mean they should be OTC (over the counter), or merely that they should be reduced from a controlled substance, to legend drug status? they are legal now, WITH a prescription.
imo, they should be legend drugs, but not controlled. (possession w/o a script would be a misdemeanor not a felony, and scripts would be much easier to get) and MD's SHOULD be able to prescribe them for physique enhancement. if plastic surgeons can install saline bags in a woman's chest for enhancement, then MD's should be able to prescribe steroids for physique enhancement. the latter is FAR safer than the former, btw.
imo, they should be readily available - by prescription. and physique enhancement should be a valid reason for a prescription. that would make sense to me.
I don't think they should be OTC.
02-24-2004, 07:22 PM
I think you gotta good point goin' here, and probably the best bet in order to get them to be legal. However, they wouldn't be covered by insurance, and I honestly don't know how much the would cost in a setting like that.Originally Posted by jjjd
Keep it simple, you wanna juice? Go to the doc, have the appropriatte measures taken, tests run, guidance sought after, etc. and take it to the bank. And if the least you could do was reduce the possesion charges to a misdemeanor, I'm all for it.....
02-24-2004, 07:26 PM
right now, they are covered by some insurance, up to a point. as a general rule, iirc, insurance companies will cover 200 mg of Test every two weeks, if prescribed for bona fide medical condition, ie low test.
therapy beyond that would be at cost. i think that's reasonable. 200 mg is the maximum that most insurance companies will cover as necessary for HRT. some more aggressive HRT docs will prescribe more than that, but it won't be covered by insurance. imo, that's fair, in the same way that breast implants are not covered - since they are cosmetic.
if steroids were not controlled (and were Rx only) and MD's were free to prescribe for cosmetic purposes, prices would be MUCH cheaper than they are now.
02-24-2004, 10:32 PM
I don't think steroids should be legalized, whether it be OTC, or through Rx.
I do not have personal experience with steroids (yet at least) however I think they should be kept the way they are. A few months ago, I would have said yes, they should be legalized, but since really starting to learn about the darkside, and even PHs, my attitude changed.
If we are so worried about keeping teens from PHs, imagine the damage they, as well as uninformed idiots of any age could possibly do to themselves with easy access to gear. As someone mentioned earlier, with steroids being tough to gain access to at first, it at least requires people to usually do some sort of research to even get them.
Look at it this way. Think of your gym, and think of the dumbest person who trains there. They are the ones benching and curling 3 days a week, not doing legs, terrible form and all that. Everyone has at least one guy like that. These would be the people doing 2g of test a week, because hey, if 500mg a week works well, then 2g must work even better right? More is always better!!!!
Maybe I'm way off, and maybe I didn't explain myself well, but I think too many stupid people would have easy access to things they shouldn't be taking. This is only AAS, imagine when some of these people got the idea for slin and whatnot.
02-24-2004, 10:51 PM
making them RX, but NOT controlled will not ensure "easy access" any more than the current situation, imo. frankly, a high school kid in many areas has little problem finding steroids (illegally) if he wants them. that's the reality.
the point is that if people are getting them WITH prescription, it is far safer than the black market because they will be getting bloodwork, physician input and prescription, and no risk of fake/unsterile/adulterated product.
fwiw, both the AMA *and* the DEA were AGAINST making steroids controlled substances. they were for keeping them as Rx, but not controlled.
it was the sports lobby that pushed it through.
imo, there are FAR more dangerous drugs out there that ARE OTC.
but that's just my opinion
02-24-2004, 11:14 PM
Yes, in comparision, teens getting gear w/o scripts now is a lot easier than if the DEA, etc. made them more widely available to get w/ a script for improving one's body, etc.
There still will probably be illegal trafficking of gear w/o scripts if that were to happen, but there's no way that it would contribute to adolescense using gear at their ages. They wouldn't be able to get a script cuz their not old enough, end of story. But, I can see what you mean about OTC sales, no doubt. But then you would still have to have an ID to purchase, etc.
All in all, the thing that makes me the most uneasy is the penalties right now for using or having posession, its just totally unecessary IMHO.
02-27-2004, 01:00 AM
Parliamentary Override has only been used twice genius, and was used in the protection of the French language in Quebec. It's not something used everyday, nor would anyone allow this. But thanks for your brilliant insight on it...
02-27-2004, 01:07 AM
05-20-2004, 10:53 PM
A couple things, even though it's an old thread:
As far as America goes these are some general reasons why steroids should be legal:
1: Prohibition is incosistent with freedom, whether it's to protect "the children" or any other reason. Adults should be free to choose their own course so long as they don't hurt anyone else or anyone else's property, or behave in way so negligent that such harm could easily happen, ie. drunk driving. The government has no business protecting you from yourself, period.
2: Practicality. No prohibition has ever been successful in the history of modern society, ever. Even with the allowance of the massive civil rights violations needed to enforce a prohibition effectively, it always fails.
3: Take everything prohibitionists say at face value, putting the drugs on the black market makes things more dangerous, not less. This is because people will not stop using them, period, and because on the black market there's no quality control, no trustworthy information because the dealers want to sell and will play down the dangers, and the government wants to curtail and will play up the hysterics, and no legal recourse for someone who is harmed by a tainted product that was being used in what should have been a safe manner is available.
4: Most if not all of the reasons for making these drugs illegal are inflated hysterics or outright lies. With marijuana it used to be reefer madness (and interestingly enough later it was being used by communists to sedate soldiers and make them unwilling to fight - the great Henry Anslinger, essentially America's first drug czar, never letting outright self contradiction get in the way of his cause). With cocaine it was blacks raping white women while under the influence, with steroids you'd do one cycle and you'd **** your liver out.
A closer examination of the studies involved shows some serious problems with the research that 'proved' the harm these drugs cause to people. Usually it involved massively out of proportion dosages over extended time periods, leading to results you would rarely if ever see in the course of real world use.
For instance with marijuana the Heath study in 1982 gave Rhesus monkees dosages of lab grade THC that were equal to 200 times the human psycho active dose over a time period of months, which if you work it out equals years if not decades of moderate use squashed into that one short time period. Researchers can't reproduce the results with lower, real world dosages. With steroids an example is an asian study concerning hepatoxicity which I believe involved a small girl with either anemia or a growth problem, a dose of anavar that would make the most juiced 'roid monster think four times, and a time period of a few years with no break, no supportive liver therapy, etc. No big surprise she had liver problems. You down ten six packs a night for ten years your liver will be shot too, but alcohol in moderation, more specifically red wine and dark beer, has health benefits. This shows the essentiality of making the study reflect what people can expect in the real world, especially when it comes to making policy decisions based on research.
5: The free market is the best means for curtailing harmful abuse of drugs while allowing adults the freedom to use them safely, because it's the most efficient purveyor of pure information and relative costs vs benefits. With no hysteria attached to the drugs by the prohibitors and the dealers (who in a black market cannot be sued for fraud or harm caused by a product during it's supposedly safe use) it's easier to take a more balanced view. Look at alcohol and cigarettes as an example. We know the problems, most people use them responsibly, and look at the plethora of ways there are available to quit these two drugs, all delivered by the free market's supply and demand system. How many different ways are there available to quit heroin, or crank? There's a reason for that, and the reason is their illegality.
If they were legal, health care providers could and should charge a premium to insure the people who use such drugs so the users bear all the burden of the risks they voluntarily take on, nor should anyone be forced to cover those risks or their possible consequences through a welfare system.
But in the end it isn't about the harm the drugs may or may not cause. It isn't about protecting "the children" who for some reason parents can't be bothered to protect themselves. It isn't about the somehow sacred and inviolable nature of, oh my gosh, sports statistics!, or any other such reason for the illegality of these drugs that needs to be dealt with.
It's this basic fact: It's my body, my life, my business, so go **** yourself if you think you can tell me what to do. It comes down to rights. The right to choose and reap the rewards of the good choices, and the duty to pay the consequences of the bad ones on your own, which includes legal and civil consequences if your behavior hurts another or their property.
If some putz sells to your kids I'll help you lock him up, but since I didn't do it nor would I, get off my ****ing back about it, leave me alone, and raise your own God damn children. It doesn't take a village, an excuse and a cop out if ever there was one. It takes two dedicated parents. For some reason up until the last 20 years or so two parents was enough regardless of the conditions people were living under.
It's about freedom, pure and simple, and freedom is enough of a laudable goal in and of itself to not require any other reason. Is it time to make steroids legal? It was never time to make them illegal.
05-20-2004, 11:19 PM
Well, I'm convinced.
Brother, YOU need to be writing your congressional representative and others, your words were well put together and very influential, allowing both sides of the argument yet keeping the point clear and valid.
You get my vote for President!
05-21-2004, 01:07 AM
hey, "genius" the point isn't how often parliamentary override has been used. the point is the ease with which it CAN be, and thus how tenuous hold canadians have on their rights.
05-21-2004, 08:15 AM
05-21-2004, 08:36 AM
I know that this statement applies to many of us here - but let me tell you there are SO many uneducated 'juice-heads' roaming the countryside it borders on the absurd. I know at least 2 people who are on injectibles and have NO idea what they're putting into their bodies, let alone how to use them safely and effectively.Right now, because they are illegal, people are almost forced to research about them, read about theire sides and take precautions.
Both of these guys (friends of mine who wont listen to reason), are spending hundreds on chemicals that they have no idea how to use, they're just taking the advice of their dealer. One has been on a 14 week cycle of test/deca/winny and plans on going right to Dbol without ANY time off inbetween. NO clue on how to train, NO clue on proper diet or PCT. I tried explaining to him what was going on in his body, and why some time off with proper meds was essential - but all in vain.
The other kid got some test enanthate and dbol from his dealer, who told him to take 'two a day'. So the kid thought he was talking about the test, and was shooting up TWICE A DAY with it. All 160lbs of him could have suffered some serious consequences.
The scariest part - neither had no idea what they were taking when I asked them. They actually had to get back to me after they went home and read the labels on the bottles.
SO, I dont think that their current legal status actually makes them safter to use.
05-21-2004, 09:43 AM
You're right, there's no evidence to support what that poster said about illegality forcing people to research. Illegality has an adverse effect on information availability and accuracy because everyone has an interest in either down playing dangers (dealers) or hyping up hysterics to support the ban (government). Looking at the information available for legal vs. illegal drugs, the information on legal drugs is always more accurate and always more widely available. With the removal of black market profit and political incentives, and the addition of possible legal and civil consequences against fraud, mislabeling, harm caused from use, etc., information becomes a lot more transparent.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
05-22-2004, 02:33 AM
I dont think they should be made legal. If Wal-mart sold them over the counter then everybody would be on them. I think if scientists would do some updated studies on them and come up with some good information about the effects that AAS can have then and only then start training doctors while they are in med school about management of cycling steroid users. If doctors were trained more about how AAS are used in cycles, they might start to understand the benefits and start to prescribe them more. I wouldn't have a problem with going to the doctor to get a script, but most doctors if asked don'thave a clue about steroids. As said before, they think that AAS will destroy the liver.
Similar Forum Threads
- By DerickVonD in forum Training ForumReplies: 42Last Post: 07-23-2010, 04:28 PM
- By punxweb in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 31Last Post: 12-13-2009, 03:36 PM
- By thenxtgrt1 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 11Last Post: 08-26-2008, 06:54 PM
- By Qaiphyx in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 01-04-2006, 06:13 PM
- By jhferry in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 10-07-2005, 01:31 PM