I am contemplating writing an article on the topic of legalizing steroids for a medical or lay journal and I need some input.

Here's the question:

Would you support a reform in the AAS laws that would allow physicians to prescribe AAS for personal use in the US? Importation, distribution and possession of non-prescribed AAS would remain illegal, but doctors could prescribe them and access to FDA approved drugs would be permitted.

YES or NO, and WHY? and/or what would you suggest to improve the current situation?

Thanks,

Might happen with weed.

And never on a Federal Level for either (at least not in our lifetime or with our current form of government)

IG

Hope you write the article, hope it's good, and if you do, I'D LIKE TO READ IT!

You are aware of the decriminalize AS sites on the web aren't you? There are three I know of.

I would say the salient points of your argument would be:

1) Decriminalization would save $$$ from federal and state budgets. If this amount is significant enough, it will perhaps convince enough of the voting public to care about the issue, and thus, it will help mitigate the idea that it's political suicide for a politician to support decrim. of AS. (Remember that most people don't excercise, and could care less about AS use, and AS users.)

2)Convince people that the physiological/ psychological effects of AS are insignificant when they are used responsibly. Also show that there are drugs which are considered acceptable (eg, acetominefen, birth control pills) but are riskier. Does their risk outway their benefits?

3) Point out that the origins of the 1990 law were based on misinformation, and that the law was passed for political gain. (There's a terrific article by a guy named Denham in _The Journal of Sport and Society_, I think. Can look up the correct reference if you want it.)

4) Show the ill effects of Black Market AS use. This is a minor point, since most people will counter with, "They shouldn't be using anyway." But it's still relevant.

5) "Won't someone pleease think of the children???!!!" Protect the kiddies from AS use was a big part of the passage of the 1990 law, but I think the gov'ts own stats. say AS use in HS is up. What to do?

I would assume that much of the reason for teenage AS use is a desire to compete in sports, and that some of it is out of vanity/ desire for sex. Without going into changing our culture's emphasis on sports and certain standards what an "ideal" body is, you might try this as a solution:

If a young person, say 12 to 19, desires to use AS for sports, tell him or her that they can use when they reach a medically approved age. (I would say at least post adolescent by a year or two--ie, no stature gains lately). If a college or pro scout sees them, the scout has got to take into account that this person has more physical potential than she currently showing, and that she can juice if she wishes, and do so with the EXPLICIT approval of the organization they will play for.

Thus all you can tell a kid in HS is, "Work hard, work hard at your knowledge of your chosen sport, work hard at your technique. We both know that size/strength are a factor in some sports, but remember you can use AS openly, and with the approval of whoever you play for when the time comes at which we think you're physically ready."

As for the HS kid who wants to use out of vanity, give them these options: You can use now, risk fine/community service/arrest, risk the use of Black Market crap (dirty, fake, counterfeit, scammed, overpriced, underdosed--many here know the story all too well), risk stunting your stature. OR you can wait a few years, and use guaranteed good stuff openly under medical supervision.

Of course, the problems with both the athlete/ cosmetic user is that: a) He/she might want to dose at levels high enough to exceed what an MD would approve. b) The cost of use under supervision might exceed the black market price. I can predict insurance will not cover athletic or cosmetic AS use, it will be hard enough to fight the idea that AS use is an acceptable risk.

AAS should be removed from the controlled schedule and again be treated equivalently to other steroids such as Prednisone, oral contraceptives etc. This will help to remove stigma against their legitimate medical use. So doctors will not be so reluctant to use the even when medically necessary. The change to controlled status was theoretically not to affect hypogonadal people, but it DID !!

If a substance is no longer controlled then it is a simple matter to buy from a chemical supply house if you're either needy or knowledgeable enough to read and understand their catalog. -Just like the good 'ol days...

In the meantime it could be a better idea to simply pursue decriminalization. Namely that an individual would not get into any trouble by obtaining or using a private supply (as in Canada). But we should Always be investigating any dealers selling to minors.

In addition: any prescription should be recognized simply as an official note of a medicine's medical necessity as advised by a physician. The layperson should be able to get medications straight from a pharmacist without the prescription. Insurance companies could choose only to honour drug expenses if backed by a prescription.

Spot on about the media, government subsides, the effect of those hidden subsides, and the "war on drugs."

Anyone interested should take a look at:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/31/magazines/index.html?CP=YAH&DN=110

Journalism has really gone to hell in this country since around the 1980's, it seems to me. There must have been some sort of de-regulation back then that caused the change. Think about it: How many local TV stations are now owned by enormous public corporations? How homogenized is the news coverage of one station compared to another?

At least the locally owned stations had a chance of acting as though the news is a public trust to be looked after in a fiduciary way, not just a commodity to be used to generate maximum profit. Local owners didn't necessarily act as fiduciaries, but at least they had an opportunity to.

The same is probably true for print, radio, and internet news. Although I don't know. I've never researched it.

As for weed, it should be legal. I dont smoke it anymore, but its no different than alcohol. But it wont either! The "war on drugs" is suprisingly profitable for the United States. To think otherwise is naive at best...

(my daily rant completed, I bid you good day)