posted June 30, 2000 04:13 PM            

It's not just perceptions and reputations. The "prestigious" New England Journal of Medicine actually published a report that claimed AS HAD NO INCREASE ON MUSCLE MASS.

The misinformation is not only in the government. It is in the medical community, which has considerable lobbying power in DC.

Furthermore there is a dominant ideology in the US that believes that the government should be able to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies. Hence the "war on drugs" (don't get me started on that) and the illegality of AS.

posted June 30, 2000 04:27 PM            

------------------
Don't put off to tomorrow what you can do today.

posted June 30, 2000 05:02 PM         

BS: Let's take a look at a little bit of steroid history. How and when did steroids become controlled substances in the United States?

RC: Back in the 1970s and 1980s, federal regulation of anabolic steroids came under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Anabolic steroids were required to be prescribed and dispensed by licensed physicians but weren't scheduled as controlled substances. It's often overlooked, however, that black-market drug trafficking of anabolic steroids was already illegal before anabolics became classified as controlled substances. Under 1988 legislation amending the Food and Drug Act, criminal penalties were specifically set forth for traffickers in anabolic steroids for non-medical reasons.

This Anti-Drug Abuse Act would have enabled effective enforcement against those illegally dispensing steroids and black-market dealers, including application of federal forfeiture laws, without classifying steroids as controlled substances. But, in the mid-1980s, media reports of the increasing use of anabolic steroids in sports, including a "silent epidemic" of high school steroid use, came to the attention of the US government. Congress grew particularly concerned with steroid use among high school students and top amateur athletes. Certain
members representing only a small minority of the medical community began suggesting controlled substance status for anabolic steroids.

Between 1988 and 1990, Congressional hearings were held to determine whether the Controlled Substances Act should be amended to include anabolic steroids, along with more serious drugs like cocaine and heroin. The majority of witnesses who testified, including medical professionals and representatives of regulatory agencies (the FDA, the DEA, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse), recommended against the proposed amendment to the law. Even the American Medical Association repeatedly and vehemently opposed it, maintaining that steroid abuse doesn't lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act!

BS: Wait a minute, if most of the experts were against scheduling steroids as controlled substances, why did Congress do it?

RC: A review of the transcripts of the hearings suggests that health-risk concerns were secondary considerations to Congress. The most influential witnesses who testified were representatives from either amateur or professional athletics. Their testimony and, apparently, the main concern of Congress focused on legislating a solution to athletes who "cheated" with steroids in sports competitions.

posted June 30, 2000 07:20 PM            

Seems as if you are claiming that you agree with AS being illegal. Naturally you are entitiled to your opinion.

I disagree. I also se your reasoning as flawed. Virtually any drug can be deadly if abused or misused.

Yes, "the line must be drawn somewhere". But believe very firmly that the drawing of the line should be done by the individuals.....it's MY body so how about I draw the line?? If I want to subject myself to abnormally high test levels, then who really should have the authority to tell me not to? After all, if I do harm myself, I have to live with that.

I also believe rec drugs should be legalized, for the same reasons. I wouldn't use them, but who am I to tell you or another person what to do to themselves?

I mean, cigarettes are legal, harmful, and nicotine is as addicitive as almost any illegal drug, yet I don't smoke.

How about letting people decide for themselves, Lex? That's my position.

posted June 30, 2000 07:47 PM            

------------------
RANGERS LEAD THE WAY

posted July 01, 2000 12:04 AM            

I agree with you that Rangers definitely lead the way.

But I disagree with your other claims - most lawmakers don't havew a clue what Halo is - all AS is just lumped into one big catch-all word: "steroids" which represents monster bodybuilders and roid rages.

Not to mention that if you look at the demographics of who is committing the aforementioned violent crimes - mostly poorer people - they are highly unlikely to be interested in AS......

Matt

posted July 01, 2000 10:45 AM            

LP

posted July 01, 2000 02:54 PM            

And why would government wanna ban steroids? simply put, cuz they are dick-sucking bitch-ass hoes..

posted July 01, 2000 03:47 PM            

ps; yes 2nd Bat.
email me we'll talk.
OUT

------------------
RANGERS LEAD THE WAY