It's a survey, given to children, and is essentially worthless.
When we had them, when I was still a child, almost every kid in the class filled them out to make them seem as outrageous as possible.
Also, many kids have been given steroidal cremes for rashes and steroidal inhalers for asthma. Do you believe they know the difference between corticosteroids and anabolic steroids?
Laughable.
When we had them, when I was still a child, almost every kid in the class filled them out to make them seem as outrageous as possible.
Also, many kids have been given steroidal cremes for rashes and steroidal inhalers for asthma. Do you believe they know the difference between corticosteroids and anabolic steroids?
Laughable.
I tend to believe that people can do as they like with their own body, however, legalizing substances that are currently illegal may lead to a perception that "if they are legal, they are harmless". These substances are controlled because they are dangerous, not because the government hates recreational drug users.
Over 100,000 people die each year (and 2.1 million more people are seriously injured), in the U.S.A. alone, from adverse reactions to drugs (both prescription and non-prescription). It's the 6th leading cause of death. These numbers, by the way, do not include drug abuse or prescribing errors.
Drugs are not a joke, they can be highly dangerous even when taken according to the directions. Toying around with the hormones in your body for no reason other than "getting HUGE" is irresponsible and dangerous.
Once again though, it's your body, the government has no business "saving us from ourselves". Do as you like, but don't blame the manufacturer when you drop dead.
Over 100,000 people die each year (and 2.1 million more people are seriously injured), in the U.S.A. alone, from adverse reactions to drugs (both prescription and non-prescription). It's the 6th leading cause of death. These numbers, by the way, do not include drug abuse or prescribing errors.
Drugs are not a joke, they can be highly dangerous even when taken according to the directions. Toying around with the hormones in your body for no reason other than "getting HUGE" is irresponsible and dangerous.
Once again though, it's your body, the government has no business "saving us from ourselves". Do as you like, but don't blame the manufacturer when you drop dead.
Whether or not steroids can be used in sporting events is a totally different issue to them being legal or illegal. For instance, high levels of caffeine in the blood is not allowed for sporting events, but caffeine is not illegal. The two issues should be kept completely separate...
And ravenmad, if you look at the history of various drugs' legal statuses you'll find that danger is really not the reason for them being made illegal... Most illegal drugs don't go near alcohol and tobacco in terms of harm or addiction. Keeping them illegal also makes drugs more dangerous and dirty (i.e., backyard jobs)...
And ravenmad, if you look at the history of various drugs' legal statuses you'll find that danger is really not the reason for them being made illegal... Most illegal drugs don't go near alcohol and tobacco in terms of harm or addiction. Keeping them illegal also makes drugs more dangerous and dirty (i.e., backyard jobs)...
Steroids only became illegal when lobbyists in Washington pushed for them to be made illegal. The FDA was hesitant to make them controlled substances, but the money spoke and presto, here we are discussing it. Screw it, keep them illegal. If someone wants them bad enough they can get them, we all know that, so why make it so easy that every uniformed knucklehead can get a hold of them. Had steroids been more mainstream and not part of a wacky subculture like bodybuilding then you and I may be able to buy them with little fear of persecution, because the pharmaceutical companies would have fought for our right to use them.
The assumption that legal status reduces use is unfounded. In fact, a lot of research has found the opposite - for example, marijuana use is proportionally higher in adolescents in the US than it is in Holland, where it's use is decriminalised.
I think a good approach is education on the real effects of drugs rather than fearmongering. Taking steroids as an example, the average Joe thinks steroids turns you into a raging bull with shrivelled testicles, a ladies' bosom and impotence problems. When the average Joe starts going to the gym, he sees guys using steroids and they actually aren't that out of control, so he thinks, "What was all that bulldust I was thinking before? These steroids are obviously completely harmless." And he starts to use them thinking they are harmless, which they obviously aren't. However, if he was educated properly about them in the first place rather than told "Just say no" he wouldn't go through such polarisation of opinion... All IMO, of course...
I think a good approach is education on the real effects of drugs rather than fearmongering. Taking steroids as an example, the average Joe thinks steroids turns you into a raging bull with shrivelled testicles, a ladies' bosom and impotence problems. When the average Joe starts going to the gym, he sees guys using steroids and they actually aren't that out of control, so he thinks, "What was all that bulldust I was thinking before? These steroids are obviously completely harmless." And he starts to use them thinking they are harmless, which they obviously aren't. However, if he was educated properly about them in the first place rather than told "Just say no" he wouldn't go through such polarisation of opinion... All IMO, of course...
Of course you are right, but I'm sure you will agree that this is the primary criteria when considering the status of new drugs.[b said:
Alcohol and tobacco have a devastating effect on health when they are abused. That fact cannot be disputed, and provides a strong argument in favor of extreme caution when deciding which substances consumers have unrestricted access to.
It's quite sad that often teenagers become addicted to these things before they are really able to make more rational, informed decisions. I know in my own life, nicotine addiction (a habit I picked up in my mid teens) had an incredible grip on me for over 20 years.
From my own observation, steroids are also quite addictive, at least psychologically, to people who have a strong desire to be big, and stay big.
My point is that modern science is capable of producing extremely dangerous and addictive drugs. Do you think it wise (or ethical) for these substances to be released to the general public, unrestricted?
Unrestricted, certainly not. But I think panicking and slapping a "Class-A" stamp on everything that alters your mood or physiology is not the approach to take either... MDMA, for example, is not as toxic as alcohol (more people die from alcohol poisoning, and MDMA has less known long term effects). GHB is similar (although overdose can happen with high doses), it is not any where near as harmful as alcohol (in the medium to long term). A lot of research into these drugs has been blocked because they are illegal...
I think if you have a sensible approach to the issue, i.e., good education at schools rather than fearmongering, restricted availability through pharmacies or doctors, and no advertising whatsoever, then children and young people will be protected from harm - they will understand the effects, will be able to make educated (hopefully uninfluenced) choices, and if they do choose to use they will have access to clean products... I think advertising for all drugs including alcohol and tobacco should cease really, it's not good and a lot of it targets young people (and if it didn't work, the advertisers wouldn't do it).
I'm with you on the nicotine, I've spent the last year and a half quitting smoking (I'm on my third and last attempt now). Former heroin addicts say that it's harder to give up smoking than it is to give up heroin. If anything should be made illegal, it's tobacco...
I think if you have a sensible approach to the issue, i.e., good education at schools rather than fearmongering, restricted availability through pharmacies or doctors, and no advertising whatsoever, then children and young people will be protected from harm - they will understand the effects, will be able to make educated (hopefully uninfluenced) choices, and if they do choose to use they will have access to clean products... I think advertising for all drugs including alcohol and tobacco should cease really, it's not good and a lot of it targets young people (and if it didn't work, the advertisers wouldn't do it).
I'm with you on the nicotine, I've spent the last year and a half quitting smoking (I'm on my third and last attempt now). Former heroin addicts say that it's harder to give up smoking than it is to give up heroin. If anything should be made illegal, it's tobacco...
A good thing to keep in mind is that almost all legislation comes out of a protectionist/profit stand point. That is, however it is conceived the end result are laws and rules that apply special protections and/or award privileges to one group of people over another. Also, privileges and profits are not always expressed in dollars and sense, it can merely be a greater sense of ease with the surrounding world (ie. "thank God I'm surround by all those potheads).
Another thing to keep in mind is the principle, surprisingly enough recently brought up on Bill Maher's program, of concentrated benefits and difuse costs. That is if a small group wants something real bad, and it's not going to inconvenience the majority by much, generally that small group will get what they want regardless of whether or not what they want actually makes sense, as the primary/only interest in the person granting the request is to get more votes.
Another thing to keep in mind is the principle, surprisingly enough recently brought up on Bill Maher's program, of concentrated benefits and difuse costs. That is if a small group wants something real bad, and it's not going to inconvenience the majority by much, generally that small group will get what they want regardless of whether or not what they want actually makes sense, as the primary/only interest in the person granting the request is to get more votes.