Steroid use does not automatically = big and soft, with little weewee.
You can use steroids and look freaking amazing, while minimizing a ton of the side effects. Problem is, most don't know enough about the chemistry to do this effectively. I know I don't. But I know people who do.
I might add, it's not just men either.
Or, you can use steroids to simply improve performance and not necessarioly make you huge. Think almost any top level athlete. Most of these performers use.... little does society know. But I think we'd be astonished if we tested 100% of professional and olympian athletes. Our society has created this paradox of expectation where we pretty much demand a certain degree of ability and perforamnce from these athletes.
And there's also the matter of those proselytizing about the evils of drugs not really understanding what they involve, either. For somebody that takes a strong interest in their performance or appearance, drugs are....heavenly, at times. But you can't expect most folks to understand that angle.
Who knows what the long term results will be in terms of health.... but you've got to think there are a ton equally worse or worser things people put into their bodies or do to themselves.
I'm not a user, as I said before, nor will I ever be. But I do understand how frustrating it is for an intelligent-juicer wrt the bad rap they get from the media and public.
My point is, there's a smart way to do them and there's a dumb way to do them. Most people ARE dumb, so they choose the dumb way, and this is what the media focuses on.
In reality, I equal it to smoking or drinking really. It's all stuff that isn't necessarily healthy.... but people do it for other reasons besides health. Can't say that I agree, but it's not my decision. People do unhealthy things all the time.
I'd rather have someone juicing than someone getting messed up on drugs and then getting behind the wheel and killing me or a friend/family member.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll also add this, from a friend of mine who has used, and is smarter than I'll ever be. This was in response to someone saying in similar words, "It doesn't matter how bad or good steroids are, the fact of the matter is they're illegal, so if you choose to use them, you should be punished."
My friend's response:
Ehhh...not so sure. When you consider that the AMA and DEA were both originally against the Anabolic Control Act of 1989, and the fact that it was mainly pressure from those with something to gain from the prohibition (WADA and pharma companies mainly), I don't see that as something a person necessarily has a duty to follow.I mean, when you're basically lying to the people so that a few groups can make money, and you remove a basic freedom by trying to essentially legislate the rules of sports...I can't take that seriously, and I can understand why others wouldn't either. It's a sad, sad state when people are willing to throw away freedom for the sanctity of NFL or MLB records. Change that from sad to "fucking stupid" and you get my thoughts on the matter.
The same guy also said, "Laws can be changed. Social norms and mores shift. That's why prohibition failed and was repealed. That's why cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not. Over time things become more and more acceptable and laws are changed. But until then... "
My friend's response:
Add to that 20 odd years of rampant propaganda that has come from emotional pleas and outright lies. Any factual data is immediately remanded to an intense scrutiny, and treated with the guilty until proven innocent fallacy; there is burden of proof placed on the one with facts, as it's assumed that the hysteria and lies are factual and must be disproven.Do you know how the "average" person feels about steroid use? It's not pretty, nor intelligent a position. Like it or not, it's a niche sub-population of a sub-population. Ironically, the entire American system was set up to prevent such "tyranny of the masses". But little things like the Constitution and even basic human nature and economics are just ignored when they become inconvenient to those in power (economic or political). Orwellian metaphors are cliche, but very applicable here.
The guy than says, "My personal belief is that there must be a line drawn somewhere on the continuum of drugs and their use. Drug use is not a black and white deal. It's not all or nothin- prohibition or free-for-all. Cigarettes? Alcohol? Okay. Steroids? Probably okay. Weed? Not so okay. Anything more? No way. I've personally witnessed too much bad shit in my time to be alright with the idea that if people were just educated on the effects of drugs that all would be good. People are stupid. People hooked on drugs? Even more stupid. The drug becomes A-number one in their life and nothing else matters unless it can get them their fix or more drugs. "
Friends final response on the subject:
AAS aren't psychologically active. That's why they're Schedule III instead of Schedule I.
The ban is based on vague and emotionally-inspired claims of health risks and people getting hurt or killed.
None of it substantiated by clinical data of any sort, mind you. Pure hysterics, which forms the foundation of why "steroids are evil."
Look at the Chris Benoit scare. Wrestler found dead choking on vomit next to a Bible, an empty handle of vodka and a bottle of painkillers after getting struck by lightning. But there was a vial of test in the fridge, so steroids did it!!!!11
I'm satirizing, but that was the gist of many real stories that were written. People believe that, and because the journalists are irresponsible sensationalists that are as stupid as the people they write for, it just continues on and on.
I actually saw an article that was using an "expert" to display how steroids made people uncontrollable. His evidence? Rat models.
Yes, we now use rats to determine how people will behave. Studies in humans don't show the same effects? We'll just ignore those.
I corresponded with the writer of that particular article, and while she seemed mildly interested, I was greeted with the same fallacies of reason. "Well, those are just two studies"....neverminding that her side had *no* studies in humans, just conclusion-jumping based on rat models. Burden of proof? Who needs that. We have hysterical propaganda.
She didn't even realize 600mg of testosterone was a supraphysiological dose based on "her sources".
This is the source of information, folks. These are the people educating you on steroids.
I'd say you likely don't know what you think you know, if the popular media is your only source of information.
For many people, it's the only source.
So we have uneducated people making the laws, uneducated people enforcing the laws, and uneducated people that have no real incentive or desire to change that.
A situation that the US gov't was designed to prevent, not to enforce.
Personally, I'm too jaded to think it will ever change. Too much power is consolidated in the right places, and there's too much inertia for that to ever happen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like there are quite a few people interested in the subject and figured this was a pretty unique viewpoint since no one that I'm aware of on this forum juices and it's very easy to simply fall into line saying "steroids are the worst."
I'm certainly not promoting their use.... but I like to look at any subject fairly, keeping emotions out of it.