juiced

[baird]

does anyone thing what this guy is saying in his book is true at all?

that steroids will become as mainstream as botox or cosmetic surgery?

i found it pretty interesting - it does seem like people are talking about roids more than ever lately.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by baird

does anyone thing what this guy is saying in his book is true at all?

that steroids will become as mainstream as botox or cosmetic surgery?

i found it pretty interesting - it does seem like people are talking about roids more than ever lately.

What book?

mainstream where? different countries have different drug laws...

My personal opinion is that the USA's drug laws make no sense from either a public health standpoint or a personal liberty standpoint. If someone wants to do roids for whatever reason, more power to them. However, I'm not sure that I am in the majority in this opinion, nor do I think most USAsians have complete and accurate information to make an informed opinion.

My $2 / 100 if necessary

[baird]

see here, the second part.

Baseball to answer back In other steroid-related news, Sandy Alderson, executive vice president for baseball operations, will give Major League Baseball's response to Jose Canseco's book on Wednesday's 60 Minutes.

Alderson was the Oakland Athletics general manager when Canseco and Mark McGwire, one of several players Canseco accuses of using steroids, were on the team. Alderson told USA TODAY he wasn't aware of any steroid use by his players. McGwire denies using steroids.

Alderson, designated by Commissioner Bud Selig as his spokesman on the book, said with baseball's new testing program for steroids, "the commissioner is looking forward toward the implementation of this program and the elimination of these kinds of issues and allegations."

The book, Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big, appeared to be a hit Monday, its first day in bookstores. It was third on Amazon.com's bestseller list.

In the book, Canseco is an unabashed advocate of performance-enhancing drugs.

"By the time my 8-year-old daughter, Josie, has graduated from high school, a majority of all professional athletes ? in all sports ? will be taking steroids. And believe it or not, that's good news," he writes. "I have no doubt whatsoever that intelligent, informed use of steroids, combined with human growth hormone, will one day be so accepted that everybody will be doing it. Steroid use will be more common than Botox is now. Every baseball player and pro athlete will be using at least low levels of steroids. As a result, baseball and other sports will be more exciting and more entertaining."

Canseco calls himself the "godfather of steroids in baseball," saying, "I single-handedly changed the game of baseball by introducing them into the game."

He also devotes sections to players' womanizing, including his own, and to umpires, "the most vengeful people you'll ever meet."

[ethernet_jock]

sick and depressing.... if the future is like this, I don't want any part of it and I don't want my kids any part of it either....

[baird]

well look what it's become already - people injecting poison into their face to kill it into smoothness, implating and inflating bags of salt water into body cavities to make breasts look bigger? i think that's pretty damn gross too. the guys have the easy side of the stick. maybe our time has just been a long time coming.

[redwolf64]

We may not admit it, but we already have performance enhancing drugs on the market, advertised every day in magazines and newspapers and very much a part of American society -- viagra, cialis and lavitra.

In one sense, I think Conseco is right. There's been a trend over the past few decades, from medicine being exclusively a practice to heal disease to one that enhances what the body can do. When you think about it, the cholestoral lowering drugs on the market are really a way for drug companies to take advantage of the fact that some people have a genetic disposition for high cholestoral and a lifestyle (often caused by our sedentary work lifes) that encourages high cholestoral. The real answer, of course, for most people, is a more healthy lifestyle, but the drug companies can make big bucks off these little pills that basically make the body behave in a way it isn't supposed to with the type of lifestyle that many people have.

Steroids in professional sports as an issue is a real joke. I think most people are beginning to look at baseball or football in much the same way we view professional wrestling -- it's not so much about untarnished, chemical free performance of atheletes as it is about putting butts in stadium seats to see the homers and the big crushing plays. It's all about money.

Cosmetic surgery and procedures emerged because doctors and pharma companies could see a market for it. It just so happened that these procedures were directed towards women who, traditionally, have been viewed as objects to adorn and "make pretty" and desireable in our society.

Only recently has the market opened up for insecure males in America, with the host of sexual performance enhancing drugs opening up the possibilities -- cialis, viagra and levitra were big breakthroughs for the big pharma companies. Again, traditionally, men don't go to doctors, don't take pills, and don't care about their bodies -- just putting on a stiff upper lip when you're sick is just part of being macho. Viagra started chaging that, getting men to actually go to their physician and clamor for pills they'd seen on TV.

You bet these interests are taking note here. If someone can make money off of making a middle aged man have the energy and muscle mass he did when he was 25, or, by extension, giving him an edge when he's going out for professional sports or competing in his job at a younger age, then the marketplace will put it there for the eager litttle consumer's grubby hands.

Any drug, even an aspirin, has great risks when abused. I'd rather see steroids and other similar drugs monitored and administered by a knowledgeable health professional than the broken system we have now. At least then, a kid would be told to wait until a more appropriate time to use such drugs under supervision than getting them from his high school football coach or teammates.

In the end, it's about adults deciding what they want to do with their bodies.

Rather than make comments about specific parts of redwolf64's comments, I found by the time that I got to the end that I agreed pretty much with everything he said.

I do believe that cosmetic medicine will eventually form yet another major schism in this society like abortion, intoxicants, politics, & religion. Some people will be vehemently opposed and others will be addicted and the vast majority in the middle will be pressured by both sides with the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ploy.

If all my friends jumped off a bridge I wouldn't necessarily go that far. Nor would I avoid looking over the edge of the bridge.

Hopefully, someday before the fanatics on either end of these issues destroy us all with their idealism, the vast majority will see the game thats going on and stop giving the dice to those deluded few.

[RadRx]

Originally Posted by redwolf64

I'd rather see steroids and other similar drugs monitored and administered by a knowledgeable health professional than the broken system we have now. At least then, a kid would be told to wait until a more appropriate time to use such drugs under supervision than getting them from his high school football coach or teammates.

I read an article in the LA Times last week about the situation that prescription drugs abuse is skyrocketing for 2 primary reasons -- 1) availability and 2) a false sense of security that these drugs are safer/cleaner to abuse.


Big Pharma is about money. Why develop a drug for a disease when you can develop one with a larger potential for consumer demand?

[TheMasu]

In his new book, baseball slugger Jose Canseco said he took steroids when he played for the Texas Rangers and that owner George W. Bush knew all about it. In response, President Bush said, "That's ridiculous. I've never known all about anything in my life."

[polomuscle]

would someone please explain to me how botox and breast reduction/enlargement and cosmetic surgery are similar to steroid use?

[ethernet_jock]

Originally Posted by polomuscle

would someone please explain to me how botox and breast reduction/enlargement and cosmetic surgery are similar to steroid use?

Thank you....

I've basically chosen to bow out of this argument up until now because I'm emotionally involved and can't get my brain around the logic of the other side well enough to pose an effective debate. Today I digress, I have to stand up for a minute.

I don't see the fair comparison there either and someone else above who refered to the concept and drive for non-steroid-use as "fanaticism" or "delusional" is just offensive and disrespectful. It's more important than idealism and more valuable than something you can just toss aside and say "well everyone has been doing it and it's getting worse so you might as well just accept it." That's the very last thing I want my kid to learn - acceptance of the inevitable even if it's wrong and not TRULY inevitable.

Not accepting something & helping push the perception that it's wrong is what makes things happen. Every big movement starts with a little push - but people have to be smart enough not to let the "this is the ultimate direction of society so I should just accept it" concept bully them out of their own morality.

This does not have to be the direction if we don't allow it to be!! It's up to us to change the tide and the time is now!

---

The above aside and my personal selection of "moral" stance on this topic established. I would agree that the ultimate solution is not prosecution and criminal control but rather education and monitoring. If using steroids wasn't illegal and "cool" and instead it became "a way to pay a lot of money to get big muscles at the risk of this and this and this health effect" - would it be quite as prevelant? or would those using/abusing be seen in a more accurate light?

I'm going to stop here because I know I'm stomping hard on some sensitive nerves in this chat forum. You guys know how I feel. I know how some of you feel. Hopefully those un-decided can make up their own minds with accurate data.

[redwolf64]

Originally Posted by polomuscle

would someone please explain to me how botox and breast reduction/enlargement and cosmetic surgery are similar to steroid use?

Both cosmetic surgery and steroid use can be used to alter appearance, simply for cosmetic or personal reasons.

Both can also be used for theraputic purposes -- breast reduction can actually be helpful when large breasts cause back problems and other issues; steroids can treat some illnesses like wasting associated with AIDS. Of course, many types of cosmetic surgery are used to help victims of accidents.

Drugs developed to treat impotency are being used recreationally in the Gay community.

Just because something is developed for healing purposes doesn't mean it will be used that way.

[redwolf64]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

I don't see the fair comparison there either and someone else above who refered to the concept and drive for non-steroid-use as "fanaticism" or "delusional" is just offensive and disrespectful. It's more important than idealism and more valuable than something you can just toss aside and say "well everyone has been doing it and it's getting worse so you might as well just accept it." That's the very last thing I want my kid to learn - acceptance of the inevitable even if it's wrong and not TRULY inevitable.

People do have differing opinions and ideas about steroid use and, in general, what's happening with medical technologies right now -- clones, genetic manipulation, etc, etc.

The humanist in me does appreciate the potential negatives of these things. If we do develop the scientific knowledge to completely reshape what our body looks like or is capable of, what does that mean for us as human beings? And what potential side effects could there be in the long term, both for the individual doing it and for society as a whole?

But the science guy inside me recognizes that we are perhaps the first beings on the planet that has the means and intelligence to alter our own evolution. We've use something as simple as a tin horn or a pair of reading glasses to enhance our hearing and vision for centuries; now science is learning how to use laser surgery, brain implants with visual or aural sensors , and other technologies to either enhance what we can do even more or even help those who have lost their sense of sight or hearing.

Lasek surgery carries risks, but people do it because they don't want to wear glasses or contacts. Some even come out of it with better eyesight than "normal" people their age.

In short, we're quickly developing a whole host of technologies that can take us in new directions as a species. And there are many moral questions associated with that.

I'm not convinced one way or another on steriods -- opponents haven't shown me full and complete studies showing how they are dangerous in all situations. By the same token, supporters don't have the data and studies to claim that there's a "safe" way to take them.

I'm wondering, ether-jock, if fuller studies were done that showed only very minor or no long-term bad effects from certain types of regimines of steroids or other performance enhancing/muscle-building drugs, would you still be in favor of a complete ban?

Herion or crystal-meth are illegal for a good reason -- people do desire them for one reason or another, but, in most any dosage, they can cause harm.

As far as I can tell, scientists have only done full studies with steroids and similar drugs for the purposes of treating a disease -- only minor research has really been done on different types of doses and short term and long term effects of these drugs.

Even if they are, indeed, as dangerous as herion, people will still try to get them and there will probably be a way for them to do so.

My point is that drug companies and other business interests, if they smell a market, could possibly wind up doing the studies that prove one way or another if these drugs could be safely used. Then we could stop basing all these debates on knee-jerk reactions at one extreme or another.

[redwolf64]

I promise -- my last post in this thread.

Slate has an interesting take on "Juiced":
http://www.slate.com/id/2113745/

An excerpt:

For those who have marveled at baseball's homoerotic rituals?the butt-slapping, the excessive man-hugs?let Jose Canseco, author of Juiced, add a more intimate encounter. Canseco claims that while he was playing for the Oakland A's in the late 1980s, he and teammate Mark McGwire would lock themselves in a bathroom stall and inject each other with steroids. Pause on that image for a moment. Canseco was 6 feet 4 inches and weighed in the neighborhood of 250 pounds; McGwire was 6 feet 5 inches and adding beef like an Arby's franchise?for the two of them to squeeze into a men's room stall must have presented something of a geometric challenge. Now imagine McGwire gently lowering his uniform pants while Canseco ("I'm a good injector") hovers over his derriere with a syringe, and add the fact that these men are enjoying this ritual immensely, even laughing about it, and there you have an enduring image of the Bash Brothers. Back, back, back, back, back?side!

[ethernet_jock]

Originally Posted by redwolf64

People do have differing opinions and ideas about steroid use and, in general, what's happening with medical technologies right now -- clones, genetic manipulation, etc, etc.

The humanist in me does appreciate the potential negatives of these things. If we do develop the scientific knowledge to completely reshape what our body looks like or is capable of, what does that mean for us as human beings? And what potential side effects could there be in the long term, both for the individual doing it and for society as a whole?

This is about humans though isn't it? It's not about science or logic, but it's about what's right. That's why I call it a "moral" debate. Part of my personal sense of what it means to be "a man" is the ability to do great things on your own without cheating. Using steroids to be better than the next guy - is cheating - even if everyone on the team is using them - even if everyone in the sport is using them.

Lasek surgery carries risks, but people do it because they don't want to wear glasses or contacts. Some even come out of it with better eyesight than "normal" people their age.

I am a successful Lasik recipient and I will NEVER argue against the gains and scucesses of modern medical science. Steroids have their place. If I had Lasik performed so that my eyes could be as sharp as an eagle's (presuming it could be done) then I would be disgusted by that procedure as well.

I'm wondering, ether-jock, if fuller studies were done that showed only very minor or no long-term bad effects from certain types of regimines of steroids or other performance enhancing/muscle-building drugs, would you still be in favor of a complete ban?

I never asked for a complete ban. In fact if you read my message carefully I'm suggesting that less laws and more education and health-professional monitoring is the way to go. I would go so far as to insinuate that allowing people to use it for cosmetic purposes would be a great idea - as long as the education came with it. Let people make up their own minds, but let them be well-informed about it.

Furthermore - I can not deny my own occasional impulse to abuse! I obviously love muscle and love adding it to my own body. Who doesn't want an easier way to get as big as those guys who are genetically blessed in that way? I - however - refuse to give in to those impulses in the name of what I see as cheating.... cheating myself.... and lieing to others about owing it ALL up to my own hard work. There's nothing better in life than achieving something great and being able to truly claim and know in your heart that you did it all with hard work. You still have to have hard work and dedication if you take steroids, but it's different, in my opinion.

As I said before - I think that's what this comes down to. Opinion and Morality. Both subjective - both human - both moderately illogical.

I would not call myself a "radical" any more than I would call our own roidboy a "radical" or "delusional" for being a steroid cosmetic abuser. He's entitled to do what he wants to his body.

My original disgust about this topic is - and will continue to be - the notion that you would HAVE to take steroids in order to participate and compete in professional sports. It's not right and it takes genetic luck and skill almost completely out of the equation. If my kid decides that he loves baseball some day, I absolutely refuse to allow him to grow up in a world where he would have to take steroids (whether he wants to or not) in order to be any good at it. If it is to be banned - it should be banned from all professional sports.

That's where I was going.

[Uskathoth]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

It's not about science or logic, but it's about what's right. That's why I call it a "moral" debate.

I realize that you may not care, but you lost me right there. The idea that right and wrong are objective and aren't effected by the immediate circumstance just doesn't fly with me. Right and wrong are always subjective.

I am a successful Lasik recipient and I will NEVER argue against the gains and scucesses of modern medical science. Steroids have their place. If I had Lasik performed so that my eyes could be as sharp as an eagle's (presuming it could be done) then I would be disgusted by that procedure as well.

So steroids that bring you up to the statistical average are ok (I guess they count as medicine) and steroids that bring you above the statistical average are drugs? Does that really make sense to you? And how could you possibly measure something like that ahead of time. If Mr. Smith has AIDS and takes steroids to prevent wasting he is taking medicine, and thus morally acceptable. What if in the course of his treatment he responds very well and ends up with a lot more muscle than if he had never been infected (it certainly happens)? Is he then a drug abuser? Should he work out less because he is obtaining a morally objectionable benefit from a drug?

Furthermore - I can not deny my own occasional impulse to abuse! I obviously love muscle and love adding it to my own body.

I agree that people shouldn't abuse steroids but my reasoning is very different. I do not believe that people should avoid substancees that will make them stronger or make them feel better. I believe that people should avoid substances that are likely to make them have liver cancer, have emotional difficulties or cause other systemic bodily problems. Steroids can do all of the above (good and bad). I object to most people using them because the gain (extra muscle) doesn't outweigh the cost (various mental and physical health risks). This cost, like the cost of alcohol and recreational drugs, will not be borne alone--it will be borne by society as a whole. So it is reasonable that society has a voice in the matter and can restrict availability (since society will definitely be absorbing costs).

As I said before - I think that's what this comes down to. Opinion and Morality. Both subjective - both human - both moderately illogical.

Well, since anything anyone believes can (in some sense) be considered opinion, I guess that is true. But the idea that people can't come to rational decisions because of "opinion and morality" is a cop out. "I have my opinion and I'm sticking to it regardless of whether it is rational because it is my opinion" is certainly a position you can take. It just isn't very compelling to others. I would hope that if you look closely at it it wouldn't be very compelling to you, either.

My original disgust about this topic is - and will continue to be - the notion that you would HAVE to take steroids in order to participate and compete in professional sports. It's not right and it takes genetic luck and skill almost completely out of the equation. If my kid decides that he loves baseball some day, I absolutely refuse to allow him to grow up in a world where he would have to take steroids (whether he wants to or not) in order to be any good at it. If it is to be banned - it should be banned from all professional sports.

In order to participate in national/global level sports you already need several remarkable things: extraordinary genetic physical gifts, extraordinary training and an extraordinary drive to succeed (to what degree that comes from environment or is inate is debatable). It is true that there are many examples (and they make great stories because they are unusual) of people who succeeded in spite of lacking one of these qualities: the small guy w/the great coach and drive who succeeds at football, the natural runner who succeeds without any formal training until he gets to the blah-blah meet, etc. (Maybe there are no stories of athletes w/o great drive because they would be bad stories or maybe you just need great drive).

Anyway, my point is that these great athletes have natural advantages over their less remarkable peers. So, the whole "steroids aren't fair" argument doesn't ring true w/me. You yourself say they "take genetic luck" out of the equation. How is genetic luck more "moral" than steroids? Is a kid who is naturally fast beating a kid who is predisposed to be slow really much of an accomplishment? Is it moral that an ectomorph kid should feel less self-worth than a mesomorph? If steroids are unfair, why is training fair?--if you look at the history of the Olympics you will see that training tech has provided significant advantages to athletes. Why are extreme diets fair?--not everyone has access to the same nutritional info and they certainly don't all have money to engage in odd diets or demanding training routines.

Also the idea that steroids take genetic luck out of the picture is just untrue. A bodybuilder who has bad (for bodybuilding) genes but takes steroids, trains well and eats an appropriate diet will make progress as a bodybuilder. He will not make as much progress as a bodybuilder with great BB-genes who also takes steroids, and eats and trains well. They are drugs, not magic.

Basically, life is not fair. Some people are naturally stronger/faster/bigger/smaller/whatever than others. Individuals may make behavioral choices (ingesting drugs or certain diets, trainings such and such a way, etc) to decrease their weaknesses and increase their strengths. This, whether you are talking about taking a multi-vitamin or doing push ups or taking steroids, is not immoral if all it does is better you and doesn't directly harm anyone. Of course, steroids run the very real risk of directy harming the user and that is the quandry. If steroids were risk free they would be "food" and we wouldn't be discussing this.

If the FDA said "here is a new strain of apples that lets you put on muscle faster and has no side effects" no one would cry foul. So they idea that steroids are objectionable for reasons other than their health hazards is nonsensical to me.

[Doctor9]

I thought I'd chip in my $0.0246 (Canandian).

I'm a chemist, so I personally hold a view regarding "chemical enhancement".

*Everything* however "natural" someone takes it to be, is based on chemicals. Some things have neutral effects on a human body, some have positive effects, some have negative effects. Most have a mix of all of the above.

In every case, one has to draw a line between proper use and improper use. If not, effects become imbalanced.

If some of the effects affect other people - then other people's personal choice comes into play - but if not, it should not be any of their business.

Unfortunately, politics and power always come into play - tobacco is an adictive drug, with potentially severe long-term health risks. Its use can affect the health of people not using it themselves, and (given that I'm in Canada) both of these health risks affect the rest of the population financially through our publicly funded health care system. So, tobacco use should be very restricted.

If not improperly used, steroids should only affect the user - and again if *properly* used, in a nearly positive-only fashion. So they should be freely accessable.

Now, does that sound like the current situation - of course not. The tobacco companies are big, rich, and have powerful lobbyists. There are entire US states where most of the income is derived from the tobacco industry.

I wonder - if three or four major states derived 90% of their income from the manufacture of anabolic steroids - would they be categorized as Schedule IV, or obtainable at every corner store like tobacco?

On the moral front - why would steroid use be "cheating"? If cheating is "obtaining an unfair advantage over the competition":
what is an "unfair" advantage - is simply being the best genetically dispositionned performer of the activity unfair. "I'm sorry, you are too good at this sport - it would not be fair to the other players if we were to allow you to play." Does that sound at all reasonable?

How about "I'm sorry, but your new (insert sport equipment here) that meets the defined specs for this game isn't owned by all of your opponents - so it's not fair, you can't play"

How about "I'm sorry, your opponents didn't have the drive to spend 10 years of their life training, dieting, and pushing themselves to excel in the sport. They wanted to party and have leisure time. It's not fair that you didn't do that as well - so you can't play"


Unfortunately, for every advantage, *somebody* will whine that it's "Unfair"

"He had more money than me"
"He had more supportive familly than me"
"He was smarter than me"
etc.

If we simply say - "anyone who is better than average for any reason whatsoever isn't allowed to compete" we might approach "fair" - at least as it defined by some people, but everything would be really mediocre.

Just a thought.

Doctor9

[Mdlftr]

One point that strikes me in this discussion of cheating is this: When the concept of cheating arises, it is usually in the context of a deviation from what is supposed to be a commonly practiced baseline or set of ground rules.

When it is learned that a certain individual is doing something expressly prohibited or illegal under the operating rules, that the concept of "cheating" is most appropos.

For instance, take televised "studio wrestling" or the WWE versus classic Greco-Roman wrestling as it is practiced at the U.S. High School and collegiate levels. Studio wresting is fake-- the moves are practiced ahead of time, the result of the "match" is scripted, and any one watching it has no expectation that it is a test of anyone's wrestling skill, but rather, scripted entertainment. So, someone who uses steriods in this context may actually be perceived as 'improving' the show--look at that guy's guns! Jeez, lukit his chest! Wow, he's amazingly strong!
etc. etc. What a performer!

High School or collegiate wrestling, on the other hand, IS a test of an individual's skill, strength, strategic judgment and 'heart'. The results are not predetermined, and the "match" is not prescripted. That is not to say that "the likelihood" of one person or another winning any given match isn't often predictable, based on past performance. It's just that the skill and other factors enumerated above are what is being tested. Someone using steroids in this case, which are supposed to get you penalized if you are caught, is using a prohibited advantage. He's cheating.

Steroids are controversial for many reasons, not the least of which is that they DO work---people who take them get bigger, stronger and more muscular. In a sport like baseball, where players are allegedly working with their born talents, their developed talents (hours of practice in batting, hitting, throwing, etc) and the circumstances of the given time and date of play (hostile/friendly crowd, weather, personal ill or good health of a player that day, injury, refereeing)
they confer an unfair advantage -- because they're illegal. Most people don't do illegal things, most of the time. So, those who are willing to do something illegal, are getting an unfair advantage, in this case. They are cheating.

It's like taking a test in class. You are supposed to close your books, not look at anyone else's paper, and do your own work. Thus, the 'clever' guys who write out answers in pencil on a blackboard near their seat ahead of time, so they can read out their answers -- are cheating. They are using a prohibited tactic to their advantage.

Sure, it's galling to read that Jose Canseco says he "made himself" into a pro athlete by his judicious use of steroids. I can just hear everyone out there going, "Sh*t, if I'd taken steroids, I 'cudda been a contenda'. too!" Well, guys, it's not that simple. Even without the 'roids, it's likely that Canseco would still be a pro ball player. He MIGHT not have made the player of the year (whatever year that was) but he'll never know, will he? He'll always have to think that it was the steroids - and so will everyone else.

He sold some books, and all he paid for it was his credibility and whatever shreds of his good name he had left. Not a price I'd want to pay.


Mdlftr

In adult environments and in the private sector there is always room for drug free baseball/football/.... Just as there is room for real (Greco-Roman) wrestling and TV wrestling. It all depends on the rules. If you want to play with us then play by these rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, go join those guys over there.

It depends on your definition of sport. To declare that there is one set of rules for "sports" is no more valid than to declare that there is only one set of rules for governments of different countries.

However, during the juvenile period and in public schools, there is usually only one option available. I don't feel it is wise to condone or promote drug use to children and the authorities do have the right to estabilish the rules for participation. The rules should be strictly enforced. Play by our rules or don't play.

Once a person reaches adult status though, he has a choice how to conduct his life and the attendant responsibility and consequences of his choices. Education about the responsibilities and possible consequences of actions is the only thing that society can do to encourage a behavior. We can't protect people from themselves. ("You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink").

Drawing a line to define where one person's actions negatively affect another can be a very blurry area, but thats what law is supposed to be about.

Should drug use by itself be a criminal offense? I don't think so. However, I do feel that it is justified for the law to exclude drug abusers from public assistance when their habit gets them in trouble (legal or medical). I don't want to have to pay for other people's mistakes. If a person's drug use drives them into drastic and more clearly illegal activities, then that is the consequence of their actions and the law can step in as necessary. I feel no obligation to save people who are voluntarily slipping down the drain.

[ethernet_jock]

"doctor" 9 - your arguments are so off-base to my objective point that I don't even know where to begin. When you have your own child some day - be it either through heterosexual relation or partnership adoption - then you can watch him slowly kill himself with steroids in order to try to keep up with all the other kids and atheletes in school. When he dies at age 29 because he pushed it way too far - then you can cry and sue the people who make anabolics or the people who sold them to him.... and maybe you'll think about our conversation. But I doubt it.

I have already said: AS AN ADULT - it's your choice to be stupid. It only becomes un-fair or cheating when you use it to your advantage in a situation where it's against the rules.... ie. professional sports. How cool is it that some kid in the ghetto may never get to play professional football even though he has tons of natural talent and trains every day (training is mostly free, if you're creative about it) because some rich suburban kid gets all the dough he needs for steroids?

I think mdlftr said it better than I ever could have. I'm going to stop here.

uskatoth - good for mr. smith. I'm glad that steroids helped him work through AIDS and gave him a little boost for his suffering, he deserves an extra does of quality of life for the hell he's going through. If he goes and plays professional sports against people without that advantage, it would be un-fair. Otherwise, whatever, he's just extending his life and his quality of life.

---

I give up on this conversation. I've been insulted as being delusional and now irrational too. It's too bad that it has to come down to these kinds of remarks in order for some people to feel like they're justified in their approach to life and fairness.

Those of you watching from the sidelines will read carefully and know that I'm right and that I've never insinuated any of the things that I'm accused or assumed for saying.... it just makes my point clearer as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to defend my attitudes or RATIONAL feelings to any of you and I feel like it would be a waste of time anymore to do so.

I am otherwise completely disgusted with this entire forum today with only a couple exceptions. I think I might step back for a while and just focus on my own training and forget about all of this.

Thanks for shining the light and turning up the sharpness on the screen!

-Chris

[glammaman2000]

"i'm under a doctor's supervision".doctors are like lawyers.if you can't find one who will do what you want;shop around&you're sure to find one who will.this explains michael jackson's nose.many md's will be happy to keep juicing you right up until they start to ruin your health.with a little effort;you can probably find one to continue after that.suit yourself.

[brent]

I wonder if most of the damage steroids do is because people tend to take too much of them, for too long? Since I don't take them, and have no plans to take them, I don't know much (anything) about them, but I wonder if their use couldn't be controlled, and monitored better if they were legalized. Since they would be prescriptions, their use could be monitored, and doctors that prescribed excessive amounts could have their licenses reviewed. Wouldn't that be a better system than we have today?