Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Alcohol more dangerous than Steroids !! BREAKING NEWS

Markusrulezzz

Markusrulezzz

Banned
Alcohol More dangerous than Heroin, Crack, and ... Its all over the news !

Steroids are not that harmful according to the list, it is very close to Ecstasy but if someone knows what to do, they can prevent the sides

All Sources

Invalid Link Removed
 
so perhaps drugs with a score of 40 or more could be class A; 39 to 20 class B; 19-10 class C and 10 or under class D." This would result in tobacco being labelled a class B drug alongside cocaine. Cannabis would also just make class B, rather than class C. Ecstasy and LSD would end up in the lowest drug category, D.

For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5).

alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

BBC.uk
 
Shame on U.S Government ! wow..... once you are 18 you can smoke Tobacco, once you are 21 you can drink **** load of Alcohol and YET STEROIDS are less Harmful HAHAHAAH !

All harmful things should be banned, Driving should be banned because they are dangerous also, skydiving, snowboarding... lol
 
Steroid use is not bad in its self as long as you do proper research and know what your doing. Its the steroid abusers / media who have no clue what they are doing that give steroids a bad name.
 
any drug has side effects. yes high doseage abuse makes them worse, and any one here looking to get bigger or stronger is in the abuse category. Dont get me worng i love steroids i blast and cruise and have no intention of geting off. However i am not under any false pretenses that what i am doing to myself is hurting my longevity on this planet. I appreciate the study and its interesting however we do have to understand that steroids do carry significant potentially dangerous and possibly fatal side effects of what most recreation users would prescribe themselves. I do disagree with the scheduling on anaboic steroids in the united states and i think it should be lessened however the lack of self accountability, and abuse potential among un-educated consumers is great, and i have seen moer than my fair share of legal PH's hurting kids because they did not take the time and effort to research. And yes that is darwinism at its finest however we all know the america is not built of the strong but for the ignorant and the government steps in to make survival easire for those of us who have no intention of using our heads.

The classification i feel is wrong, testosterone eq etc etc i would score almost a zero however abuse of things such as anadrol, tren, dbol, M1T etc are very toxic steroids with very serious and potential fatal consequences if mishandled.

I do wish steroids where easier to obtain and less of a crime to possess however i dont think it is very realistic for our government to change that, they seem very reluctant to giving us freedom, however the are more prone to making new and stricter laws each passing day.
 
Markusrulezzz said:
Shame on U.S Government ! wow..... once you are 18 you can smoke Tobacco, once you are 21 you can drink **** load of Alcohol and YET STEROIDS are less Harmful HAHAHAAH !

All harmful things should be banned, Driving should be banned because they are dangerous also, skydiving, snowboarding... lol
Click to expand...

I think you're reading to much of this at face value and don't understand HOW he ended up at those results. The reason Alcohol ended up number one:

"Crack cocaine is more addictive than alcohol but because alcohol is so widely used there are hundreds of thousands of people who crave alcohol every day, and those people will go to extraordinary lengths to get it."

He used a point based system on a wide variety of variables "including a drug's affects on users' physical and mental health, social harms including crime, "family adversities" and environmental damage, economic costs and "international damage". ect...

Of course Crack or Heroine is more dangerous than Alcohol, but based on the fact its been legalized and accepted for so many years people have become far more dependent on it and accepting of its harmful side effects versus crack or heroine because obviously you cant collect $1.50 and go buy a "40 of crack" to get rid of your shakes.
 
Also I would seem to think the reason Anabolic Steroids ranked so low on the list is because of the fact people don't go out and fight over bottles of PH's and create gang's to sell injectibles on the corner.
 
this is a known fact the goverement would like to keep ignoring and keeping it on down low shhh.I'll just leave this here.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Is anyone just encouraged to try LSD, ecstacy, or mushrooms after reading how safe they are?
 
twistid said:
Also I would seem to think the reason Anabolic Steroids ranked so low on the list is because of the fact people don't go out and fight over bottles of PH's and create gang's to sell injectibles on the corner.
Click to expand...

what you got on my ph fix--..son??

Invalid Link Removed
 
No, I found a chart in a website that had PERSONAL HARMNESS and Social HARMNESS and still steroids were on the bottom on both !!! LOL
 
Markusrulezzz said:
No, I found a chart in a website that had PERSONAL HARMNESS and Social HARMNESS and still steroids were on the bottom on both !!! LOL
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't use some random website as empirical evidence for your perspective. I get where you're coming from in this instance, but you have to realize that availability and acceptability play a huge role in this.

Also, the way you're always carrying on about this makes it sound like you may be an AAS/peptide abuser.
 
Rodja said:
I really wouldn't use some random website as empirical evidence for your perspective. I get where you're coming from in this instance, but you have to realize that availability and acceptability play a huge role in this.

Also, the way you're always carrying on about this makes it sound like you may be an AAS/peptide abuser.
Click to expand...


Invalid Link Removed

That's from BBC !!!! It's not a random website.... We are all AAS Abusers because they are ILLEGAL !
 
Markusrulezzz said:
That's from BBC !!!! It's not a random website.... We are all AAS Abusers because they are ILLEGAL !
Click to expand...

Using legality as your stance for abuse is all sorts of logical fail. For example, let's use alcohol for this. Now, alcohol is legal to consume/purchase after 21, but there is a huge difference in someone who drinks responsibly (a few drinks several times a week) and someone who gets hammered everyday. The first person is an example of a user and the second an example of an abuser.

There is such a thing as responsible steroid use, but, more often than not, it is abused usually due to a lack of responsibility. Hell, most of the recent ban occurred because of abuse by HS kids.
 
LOL i would love to see the conclusions that brought the score for weed

On another note....If alcohol is really that bad...guess im fu*ked lol
 
Ms9 said:
Is anyone just encouraged to try LSD, ecstacy, or mushrooms after reading how safe they are?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? The drugs aren't ranked specifically based on how much damage they cause to the body. There are many variables that play into how they are ranked. Again, which is why AAS ranked lower than Marijuana yet higher than Ecstasy.
 
Rodja said:
Using legality as your stance for abuse is all sorts of logical fail. For example, let's use alcohol for this. Now, alcohol is legal to consume/purchase after 21, but there is a huge difference in someone who drinks responsibly (a few drinks several times a week) and someone who gets hammered everyday. The first person is an example of a user and the second an example of an abuser.

There is such a thing as responsible steroid use, but, more often than not, it is abused usually due to a lack of responsibility. Hell, most of the recent ban occurred because of abuse by HS kids.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with this, the use of steroids such as HIV patients, burn victims, or MS patients seems like a good reason to take steroids, and at their prescribed amounts for these diseases/injuries are not chategorized as abuse. The use of AAS to get bigger taking higher doseages than what is perscribed by anyone is abuse. There is no performance enhancing responsible anabolic steroid user. The use of any medication to get a benefit either physical or mental beyond the intent of the drug is abuse. Yes u can run high amounts of AAS with a reasonable (not devoid but reasonable) amount of safety. Is it safe? no. Are there side effects? yes. Is intentionally taking too much of a medication to attain a specific goal, other than what the medication is designed for abuse? yes it is.

Again dont get me wrong i love steroids but you guys have to stop sugar coating what ur doing. Any abuse of a medication to get a performance enhancing effect is abuse. And abuse definately qualifies for anyone who is completely healthy taking large doses of any medication without sufficient need.
 
MikeGfilms said:
On another note....If alcohol is really that bad...guess im fu*ked lol
Click to expand...

I didn't look at the article but someone was discussing how heroin (opium) is the safest drug because it binds so well in the body. Alcohol is bad because the effective dose can be considered .1 BAC, and the lethal dose can be .4. So 4 times the effective dose of alcohol is deadly. It takes 10 times the effective dose of heroin (that isn't tainted with battery acid) to kill someone.

He mentioned a book called something morphine and chocolate, basically discussing the safe ways of drug use or along those lines. Makes you think.

However in the grand scheme of things who is more likely to die, someone using heroin or someone who drinks? There's hard facts, and then there is reality.
 
slacker86 said:
I have to disagree with this, the use of steroids such as HIV patients, burn victims, or MS patients seems like a good reason to take steroids, and at their prescribed amounts for these diseases/injuries are not chategorized as abuse. The use of AAS to get bigger taking higher doseages than what is perscribed by anyone is abuse. There is no performance enhancing responsible anabolic steroid user. The use of any medication to get a benefit either physical or mental beyond the intent of the drug is abuse. Yes u can run high amounts of AAS with a reasonable (not devoid but reasonable) amount of safety. Is it safe? no. Are there side effects? yes. Is intentionally taking too much of a medication to attain a specific goal, other than what the medication is designed for abuse? yes it is.

Again dont get me wrong i love steroids but you guys have to stop sugar coating what ur doing. Any abuse of a medication to get a performance enhancing effect is abuse. And abuse definately qualifies for anyone who is completely healthy taking large doses of any medication without sufficient need.
Click to expand...

I think you misread my statement. I am saying that there is a huge difference between use and abuse and using legality/prescribed is useless when it comes to defining this. The scope of what defines "performance enhancing" is a very broad spectrum. I contend that any opiates/narcotics are even more dangerous than AAS because they're so readily available and accepted. I fail to see how taking something like a cortisone shot after injury is worse than taking nandralone to avoid injury. Abuse occurs when the usage becomes deleterious to the body and when it creates more problems than it solves.

I am by no means a fan of using oral steroids as those complicate the picture through hepatoxicity and killing the lipids (lowering HDL and increasing LDL), but you can easily use injectables for a given time period with minimal side effects if the proper precautions are taken.
 
Markusrulezzz said:
so perhaps drugs with a score of 40 or more could be class A; 39 to 20 class B; 19-10 class C and 10 or under class D." This would result in tobacco being labelled a class B drug alongside cocaine. Cannabis would also just make class B, rather than class C. Ecstasy and LSD would end up in the lowest drug category, D.

For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5).

alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack

Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed

BBC.uk
Click to expand...

This is old news in the uk.

A couple of things to bare in mind is this.

Steroids are not as stringently researched in terms of bodybuilding and mainly less people use steroids as they do alcohol.

Basically these are results per population(mostly). Basically lets say for example 85% of the population use alcohol and 5% use steroids then obviously there will be less cases of hospitalisation, violence, liver damage, genral organ damage and death from steroids. If 85% of the people started using roids and as frequently as alcohol then the stats IMO would change drasitcally. I'm Actually a drug worker in the UK and I can tell you for definate that the people who abuse steroids compared to the ones who are abusing MDMA are running in to problems far quicker and far worse than the ones popping ecstacy(hepititus , bitch tits and liver damage for example). Just and observaton from the front line.

Anyway, since when did we trust what 'they' say? :) However very interesting.
 
No my man, do you think researches are dumb like that ?

When they compare 2 drugs , they test for example 50 users in each drug category so they get a legit answer... It's not like they compare 20 alcohol users to 2 steroid users to get a BIASED answer

Those are drugs, not politics, they won't fake

And the reason why you deal with those people is because they are retarded and use steroids with no research !!!! My father is 45 years old, been juicing for 20 years and healthy like a MAD lion...
 
Markusrulezzz said:
No my man, do you think researches are dumb like that ?

When they compare 2 drugs , they test for example 50 users in each drug category so they get a legit answer... It's not like they compare 20 alcohol users to 2 steroid users to get a BIASED answer

Those are drugs, not politics, they won't fake

And the reason why you deal with those people is because they are retarded and use steroids with no research !!!! My father is 45 years old, been juicing for 20 years and healthy like a MAD lion...
Click to expand...

Are you high or something?

Bet your 20 year juicing mad lion dies of heart disease.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Are you high or something?

Bet your 20 year juicing mad lion dies of heart disease.
Click to expand...

His brother, which is my uncle died at 50 because he was FAT as a mad elephant and he got heart attack because his heart couldn't handle ! and never juiced...

I'll let you know when my mad lion dies, 45 and still running like a beast
 
Markusrulezzz said:
His brother, which is my uncle died at 50 because he was FAT as a mad elephant and he got heart attack because his heart couldn't handle ! and never juiced...

I'll let you know when my mad lion dies, 45 and still running like a beast
Click to expand...

So heart disease runs in the family and you are touting that your dad blasts something that kills lipid values?

I am all for doing what you want, but your fanboy attitude for steroids is perplexing. Your graphic is complete bull****... Seriously... you are effectively saying that MDMA is safer than Juice which MDMA has showing on brain scans to nearly starve areas of the brain from oxygen rich blood.

Lets not for get the first line in that article... in the UK! By your reasoning that you have stated, how are they justifying that in the UK and not presenting a general statement? Why is MDMA safer in the UK than elsewhere?

The article is a sham.
 
Markusrulezzz said:
No my man, do you think researches are dumb like that ?

When they compare 2 drugs , they test for example 50 users in each drug category so they get a legit answer... It's not like they compare 20 alcohol users to 2 steroid users to get a BIASED answer

Those are drugs, not politics, they won't fake

And the reason why you deal with those people is because they are retarded and use steroids with no research !!!! My father is 45 years old, been juicing for 20 years and healthy like a MAD lion...
Click to expand...



Yes they are dumb like that infact.

They dont have a clue about how many people are using steroids.

Tell me this. How do they take a control group of drug users, the access how many of them are doing harm to others?? Errr they cant can they. These statistics are taken from when the pick up in society, not a control group of 50.

Trust me I know. Plus its obvious.

Basically when a police man arrests a man for assult when he's drunk, it goes down on the stats as alcohol related crime yes?? What the problem with steroids is this. They never pick up on when a steroid user commits a crime due to steroids(hardy ever) thus it doesnt go down on the stats. Its easier with alcohol.
 
Sorry. Lots of typos...

They cant access the harm they do to others in a controlled group!! Its obvious its taken from stats in society. I.e the ER, the legal system and from genral referrals into services. Where is your evidence this was done in a contrlled group??

The thing is I was privy to this report before it was released. We argued then it was faulted for these very reasons. I know exactly how they have come about.
 
Markusrulezzz said:
And the reason why you deal with those people is because they are retarded and use steroids with no research !!!! My father is 45 years old, been juicing for 20 years and healthy like a MAD lion...
Click to expand...

AAS are random. Whats good enough for the goose is not always good for the gander.

Hdrol is punted as a mild anabolic thay doesnt aromatise, yet the internet shows a few logs where people have got gyno on cycle. They take the reccomended dose, have the all the PCT ready to go and support supps, yet they end up abusing there bodies accidently. Just one of those things.
 
SkItZoId said:
AAS are random. Whats good enough for the goose is not always good for the gander.

Hdrol is punted as a mild anabolic thay doesnt aromatise, yet the internet shows a few logs where people have got gyno on cycle. They take the reccomended dose, have the all the PCT ready to go and support supps, yet they end up abusing there bodies accidently. Just one of those things.
Click to expand...

those are sad lions, remember my father is a mad lion lol

but anyways, with drugs **** does happen but man to be honest, AAS are worth it ! I wasn't as confidence as I am now and thanks to AAS

We all know it and that's why we take them right ? No one is a pro here
 
Markusrulezzz said:
those are sad lions, remember my father is a mad lion lol

but anyways, with drugs **** does happen but man to be honest, AAS are worth it ! I wasn't as confidence as I am now and thanks to AAS

We all know it and that's why we take them right ? No one is a pro here
Click to expand...

Dosn't make them safe.

I haven't used any gear in well over 4 years now. Personally Im confident without. Not to say I wont use them again, but thats awhile down the road.

AAS have servere side effects even when used in moderation. Physically and mentally. My point stands. These stats are taken from society and not from controlled tests. The system is full of errors. That said the people responsible for the study never put us under the illusion that it was a 1-1 trail putting drugs nose to nose. This is why its important that people dont leap to unfounded conclusions about the safety of drugs based on a table like this. It just reflects drug trends and usage. If crack could be bought for the supermarket(buy 2 rocks get 1 free) then we would soon see some jossling of figures.
 
Markusrulezzz said:
those are sad lions, remember my father is a mad lion lol

but anyways, with drugs **** does happen but man to be honest, AAS are worth it ! I wasn't as confidence as I am now and thanks to AAS

We all know it and that's why we take them right ? No one is a pro here
Click to expand...

What happens to your confidence if you cant cycle again? Or at least for a long time?

If your willing to take risks with your mental and physical health over issues like low self esteem, then in my opinion that is a catogory of addiction and possible abuse.
 
SkItZoId said:
What happens to your confidence if you cant cycle again? Or at least for a long time?

If your willing to take risks with your mental and physical health over issues like low self esteem, then in my opinion that is a catogory of addiction and possible abuse.
Click to expand...

I used to be a skinny pencil with no confidence, I started working out and juicing ! now I look like a Marker hahaha...

why do people start AAS then ? because something makes them happy and it's their body

Do you think I can keep my gains if I be 235lbs using juice and then stop using juice ? 6'3'', medium built
 
Markusrulezzz said:
I used to be a skinny pencil with no confidence, I started working out and juicing ! now I look like a Marker hahaha...

why do people start AAS then ? because something makes them happy and it's their body

Do you think I can keep my gains if I be 235lbs using juice and then stop using juice ? 6'3'', medium built
Click to expand...

People use them for different reasons. Asthetics, physique enthusiastic, competitive bodybuilding, confidence, performance enhancement, medical issues, phychologial issues, AIDS, cancer. Loads of reasons.

I have nothing against steroids. Lets not drift from the point of the thread. Its just this thread is a misleading in the way its been presented. I think its important to have that pointed out to readers.

As far as your gains are concerned the I would guess the answer is no. It all depends on how much you could gain naturally without steroids, how old you are, how long you've been training, what you weighed before steroids etc. Im no professional in this kind of advice. All I know is low self esteem isn't the best reason to use steroids.
 
ryansm said:
Wow, that study is horrible, imo. Completely subjective to their goals.
Click to expand...

It wasn't released in the best way lol. Alot of people take it the wrong way.

Its silly, litrally because less people frequently use ketemine and at that point nobody had been hospitalized for the devistating affect it has on the bladder(although there are many cases now of people having perminant cathiter bags now) it score lower than cannabis(cant remeber the last time cannabis made anyones bladder rot??).... Ketemine has profound effects on the phyche too and recent studies are begining to suggest its addictive. Oh well so long as 'they' say its safe i'll have 4 grams :)
 
Benzos, methadone, MDMA, less harmful to the user than weed? Not sure how they got their figure, but I have a problem with the results. Benzos are horribly addictive, and harmful in so many other ways. I could list a litany of issues with MDMA and methadone. I haven't read the entire study, but I would like to know how they determine the harmful effects to the user. And I agree with the proportion issue.
 
ryansm said:
Benzos, methadone, MDMA, less harmful to the user than weed? Not sure how they got their figure, but I have a problem with the results. Benzos are horribly addictive, and harmful in so many other ways. I could list a litany of issues with MDMA and methadone. I haven't read the entire study, but I would like to know how they determine the harmful effects to the user. And I agree with the proportion issue.
Click to expand...

They take count the risk of obtaining drugs i.e from a chemist or from a dealer too. They like to tout prescription drug use as safe, for reasons kind of understandable, but again misinformed and stupid in the bigger picture. But its stupid, methadone has killed more people than cannabis for sure and benzo's too. Plus either methadone and benzo's mixed with alcohol can be deadly. I think they've pulled alot of it out their arses to be honest. Believe me, people here in some of the top jobs with regards to alcohol and drugs dont have a friggin clue about either....Honestly.
 
i lol'd at this thread
 
ryansm said:
Benzos, methadone, MDMA, less harmful to the user than weed? Not sure how they got their figure, but I have a problem with the results. Benzos are horribly addictive, and harmful in so many other ways. I could list a litany of issues with MDMA and methadone. I haven't read the entire study, but I would like to know how they determine the harmful effects to the user. And I agree with the proportion issue.
Click to expand...


The proportion issue is the whole point at the end of the day. Iys where the bulk of the stats are drawn from. Weed probably causes more harm at this point due to the way it is purchased here in the uk. Also remeber that smoking week in the uk is done genrally with tobacco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top