Fatal 'no-knock' search trial draws interest

[liftshard]

Well...I take a different view of it. A drug is a drug is a drug.

They all have usages and they all have side effects. I don't think AAS is special compared to narcotics; it's just different in terms of what it provides to its user. Narcotics can be used as "responsibly" as AAS, as can pot. Narcotics have addiction potential, but so does cocaine and cocaine is not, in fact, physically addicting according to most research. There are obviously some guys who are hooked on AAS and abuse it as well. Rush Limbaugh admitted to narcotics addiction but he's still kept a multimillion dollar business venture going, was a commentator on ESPN and had his daily radio show. It's not like drug use or even addiction in and of itself is necessarily that deterimental to society. There are more recreational users of non-AAS drugs than there are of AAS and they hold down jobs and are generally productive members of society.

I'm just having difficulty, Rick, in seeing what is special about AAS? These things cause cancer, liver failure, kidney failure, prostate enlargement, and a host of other potentially fatal side effects. We all know that. Everyone talks about it and acknowledges that there is RISK, even if they aren't ABUSED. Not everyone who doses Anadrol all the time will die of liver failure and not everyone who keeps it to "responsible doses" will avoid prostate cancer. Likewise, some people will become addicted to various substances and some won't. Some may die of a heart attack on a crack pipe. Some alcoholics will die of liver failure, some won't. Some AAS users won't ever come off of them. They are as addicted as Rush.

In terms of risks and side effects, I really don't see the difference between AAS and other recreational drugs. Neither are necessary. You don't *need* AAS anymore than people *need* to smoke pot (HRT and glaucoma notwithstanding). You may *want* to use AAS and others may want to use pot, but what is the difference? Pot use can cause lung cancer over long periods of time. Long-term painkiller use can cause liver failure or chemical encephalopathy. AAS may destroy liver function or cause stroke or congestive heart failure...how is there really any legitimate difference between all of these?

Is it because AAS users erroneously see themselves as "more fit" than cokeheads because AAS guys are going to the gym and outwardly look healthier in terms of muscular development? That's an unwarranted conceit. I am not wanting to rain on anyone's parade here, but let's all be honest about what we're all doing here on this forum. The "Elite Lifestyle," as it is called, is RIFE with risk and they are the same risks as other illicit drug users engage in, but for different reasons. If anything, wanting to be bigger than normal is purely vanity, no better or worse than wanting to get high to feel better temporarily. Guys who look like they are in better shape than 99.99% of people on earth have dropped dead because of performance-enhancing drug use, not just in bodybuilding, but in professional cycling as well. People who look fine drop dead due to OD, but that's usually because of purity issues, not inherent lethality.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in the rationale behind the elective use of AAS which distinguishes it from the elective use of narcotics, cocaine, pot, or any of a number of other drugs. Perhaps you can elucidate on your reasoning.

 

[[email protected]]

A sizable judgment in the Bethlehem case could prompt the city of 78,000, which has a $34 million annual budget, to raise taxes or float a loan. The plaintiffs rejected a $500,000 settlement offer, the city's liability insurance limit at the time, saying it would take $20 million to settle.

I hope the judgement bankrupts them.

 

[Rick Collins]

I concede, liftshard, that your view is the prevailing one. You WIN this one in the court of public opinion. And as long as America sees it that way, the War on Drugs will continue to scoop up good bro's here and there. Joe Biden's new bill asks the U.S. Sentencing Commission to INCREASE federal steroid penalties (to give the DEA the incentive they've lacked to really go after America's juicers). Soon, if the bill passes, prohormones will be controlled substances as well, despite NO evidence of addictive potential, and people will be busted for andro (about which they'll say, "A drug is a drug is a drug." (Hmmm. Think about that.) So, you're clearly in good company.

Asking me to make my case for why steroids are different and should be treated differently as a forum post is like asking me to briefly convince a jury to give me a favorable verdict. I'd only do that after carefully laying out the evidence, bit by bit, which is exactly what I did over the course of twenty-five chapters of the book that I understand you have no intention of reading. (Thankfully, many people have read it and have found it quite persuasive.)

But here's some basic food for thought. In my humble opinion, for starters, a drug is NOT a drug is NOT a drug. To say otherwise is both factually and legally incorrect. Yes, all drugs have potential side effects. But aspirin is different from cocaine which is different from Tetracycline which is different from oxycodone. The law recognizes these differences. Some drugs are available over the counter. Others require a prescription. Still others are designated as controlled substances. And even among controlled substances, there are five schedules each recgonizing different criteria. Some controlled substances have a very high potential for physical or psychological dependency. Others have low, and others are in between. Each class has its own different criteria. Even penalties are tied to these distinctions, validating the significance of the differences. The "drug is a drug is a drug" statement is one that was attributed, I believe, to former DEA Chief Asa Hutchinson and other DEA brass. It's a favorite of War on Drugs folks. Don't buy it. While they're singing a new tune now, the DEA outright admitted it when they testified to Congress that steroids DON'T BELONG in the Controled Substances Act. The FDA and AMA agreed. Surprised?

Your recitation of the adverse health consequences is quite misleading. Steroids CAN be dangerous. So can driving your car or eating a fast food diet. Skiing and scuba diving have been fatal. I invite you at some point to investigate the medical and scientific literature on AAS -- I suspect you will be shocked. Check out the raw data, not the "politically corrected" conclusions. But be all that as it may, potential adverse health consequences are not among the controlled substances scheduling criteria anyway.

One person's "vanity" is another person's "noble quest for self-improvement." Using steroids for physical enhancement and improved self-esteem may not be everyone's cup of tea. Some may say it's shallow. But making the choice to use the available medical tools to LOOK better, in my opinion, is FAR more analogous to getting liposuction or Botox or breast implants or hair transplants. Having prosthetic implants stuck into parts of your body by a surgeon is quite dangerous and arguably just plain crazy. But nobody's being arrested for it. Cosmetic surgery has killed, and it can become addictive and disastrous (have you seen Michael Jackson lately?). But personal freedom isn't about making good choices. It's about making YOUR OWN choices.

Chew on that a bit. You seem like a smart guy (I'm not kidding) and I think the more that you think about this issue the less wedded you'll be to your initial position.

And have a good weekend, all!

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

A drug is a drug, huh? Imagine the shock and disbelief when DEA tactical teams begin raiding Starbucks across America and seizing that caffeine. I hope then don't also raid granny's house and seize her Lipitor.

BTW, there is a well-documented chapter of LEGAL MUSCLE which discusses the reality of the side-effects of AAS. Aside from extended use of Anadrol, at what would be excessive dosages even by the Evel Knievels of bodybuilding, no other AAS has been conclusively linked to liver cancer.

RW

 

[liftshard]

Rick said:"But personal freedom isn't about making good choices. It's about making YOUR OWN choices.

Chew on that a bit. You seem like a smart guy (I'm not kidding) and I think the more that you think about this issue the less wedded you'll be to your initial position"


My initial position is that drugs should be decriminalized - ALL drugs. I can find no logical basis upon which to discriminate between one drug with low side effects and another. As for the "dangers of steroids," I actually AM familiar with the medical research on this, as I am with the so-called "dangers of pot" or "dangers of narcotics." I mean, Rush just got busted buying Oxycontin, a "dangerous narcotic," according to the reefer-madness, hype-pimping press. I am not prone to this type of emotionalism. I just look at fact. Physiologically, even narcotics addiction is relatively BENIGN. In fact, its long-term consequences are comparatively milder than unchecked steroid use. People lived with narcoaddiction since the invention of morphine and the hypodermic needle after the Civil War. Even heroin addicts could hold down jobs.

The problems with recreational drugs are in terms of COSTS to users to sustain addictions (due to supply/demand forces skewed by Prohibition), and purity issues. Heroin ODs come from uncontrolled potency. Coke ODs come from uncontrolled potency. In fact, buying ANYTHING off the street, you have no clue what's in it, how strong it's gonna be, and whether it might kill you dead or not.

Decriminalization and selling these things through licensed pharmacies is a solution. Heroin ODs are relatively common, but Oxycontin ODs are almost never heard of...why is that? Because OC is a pharmaceutical drug produced under strict purity and quality guidelines. Users know exactly how much is in each pill. There is no chance of getting "bad stuff." When you buy heroin from a street dealer, god knows what you could be getting.

It is the same for gear; we have an entire counterfeit board here and pictures board to try to ensure that people get legitimate drugs instead of stuff that could be potentially harmful or infection-threatening. The risk of this is WHAT the black market brings - for ALL drugs.

But, for gearheads to try to fight the good fight for THEIR pet drug while looking crosseyed at potheads is kinda how potheads look at gearheads when they're petitioning for marijuana legalization, isn't it?

I mean, we have a situation where everyone thinks THEIR drug should be legit, but keep all that other "dangerous" stuff BANNED, man. That's simply not a logically tenable position because, from an analytical perspective, there is no real difference between elective use of ANY substance. Yes, they have different addiction, side-effects, and intended effects profiles, but that doesn't make them "different" in any overarching sense when it comes to whether or not people should be allowed to make THEIR OWN choices (your words).

As far as the dangers of even heroin, there was a study in Britain where heroin addicts were provided with pharmaceutical grade junk and they held down jobs. They didn't end up in the streets. What puts these people in the streets is the escalating COSTS of their addiction, not the addiction itself. In fact, I know many, many recreational drug users who use almost constantly; it might surprise people to know how many people out there use cocaine, MDMA, or other "serious" drugs on a regular basis. And, these people are professionals, with good jobs, management, etc. There is nothing that says that the set of drug users, even addicts, cannot intersect with the set of "productive members of society." What causes the intersection to break down is the black market and the pricing effects of artificially restricting supply through criminalization. If heroin addiction were treated as a disability and dealt with accordingly, we'd see TONS fewer people strung out on the streets.

People have habits; that's the way people are. As a society, we need to find a way to cheapen these habits so that the addicted who are on can stay working and not have to turn to stealing, and that they get appropriate treatment. If we spent our jail dollars and police force dollars and all of these freaking Drug War dollars on treatment programs, we'd have less crime and less aggregate societal "ill" on all levels.

 

[tripleoption]

Heroin ODs are relatively common, but Oxycontin ODs are almost never heard of...why is that?

Ummm...Because you're wrong? There are MANY OC Od's every day. I've SEEN many of them. Most "accidental" deaths aren't reported to the media. How often do you pick up a paper and read about a heroin overdose? I've been to scenes where I know it was an OC or Heroin OD and the paper just prints a regular Obit. Believe ME, people do OD on Oxy regularly.

 

[liftshard]

I would wager that the rate of heroin OD to OC OD is far in excess of one. Heroin is a much riskier drug to take because there are no pharmaceutical constraints involved in its manufacture. OC ODs typically involve combinations of drugs and suicide attempts. OC is a safer drug than heroin, because OD is far more predictable based upon the gram weight of the pill versus gram weight of some smack containing god knows what.

 

[94flamdblazer]

I gotta agree with trip some on this. I knew a guy (next door neighbor kinda know mind you) that ODed like 7 times and about 4-5 of that was Oxy. He was trying for attention or something and kept doing it as well as owning his own company at the age of 18( given to him by his father) He has sobered up from what Ive heard and is doing better. Never saw it in any paper

as far as this topic , I think alot should be legalized, hell look at Amsterdam and its legal usages! They dont have 1/50 of the crime we do ! Alot of what we have here , drug and gang related , is all from HARD ILLEGAL drugs, not the potheads and ravers

 

[liftshard]

94 - if we're going to take intentional suicide attempts into account, Tylenol is the most dangerous drug out there. I was talking about unintentional ODs. Lots of kids try to kill themselves on all sorts of things, but most heroin ODs, among non-bipolars, are accidental. Accidental OD w/ OC just doesn't happen because the strength of the doses is well-known. Heroin ODs happen to long-time users because they get bad junk, whereas a person could use OC theoretically indefinitely and there is no chance of this happening.

BTW, I know of a couple people who did suicide attempts w/ Tylenol. Lots do sleeping pills too.

The crime comes mostly from the illicit drug market, primarily among dealers of crack and heroin. A lot of the speed freaks are turning to Ritalin or Adarol, the ADD drugs, because they're so oft-prescribed and like 60% of the kids in some schools have a prescription for them. Many flip the pills to a speed freak or someone else who wants an upper. There's so much supply right now in terms of narcotics and uppers that there is no reason to shoot over them. Half the kids in America have access to speed basically - all they have to do is act out or have a bad semester and they'll get a script. So, that leaves really only coke/crack as a drug that's suffering from short supply.

If anything, the advent of internet drug sales and overprescription of ADHD drugs to kids has brought drug crime rates down. It's increased supply and that means decrease in price and decrease in sales risk. That means less profit and less need to go shooting. Same thing w/ OC, which has cannibalized the heroin market. Many more people are scoring this stuff from grandma or leftovers from toothaches and are flipping it onto a local market. Lower centralization of distribution means less profit, more competition; these are all market issues and why there is nobody getting shot over steroids. OC and other narcotics are everywhere now (the sky hasn't fallen), as are AAS. If anything, a prohibition drug policy should seek to punish only large-scale sales, because the larger dealers might seek to exert monopoly power and that means killing other dealers. Whether it's over one street corner or a larger turf war among rival sets vying for occupation of prime distribution space (analogous to a military campaign), monopoly pricing tendencies should be discouraged. But, small scale dealers and users should be left alone or given treatment or mild discouragement. All of the crime comes from a drive by certain parties to exert monopoly control over incredibly lucrative markets. So long as narcotics are getting prescribed over the internet and you can actually buy legit gear via the internet, there will be no ability of anyone to engage in this type of behavior.

If you think it's bad here, go to Colombia or Peru, where major, mob-level cartels have been trying to corner the coke sales and production markets since the drug became popular. It's been a bloodbath down there. Pablo Escobar was a bigger thug than Al Capone could even approach. And, he waged brutally murderous campaigns against rivals. The operation to bag him required lots of bullets and lots of killings on all sides.

The pot situation is far better where some places, like OR, recognize reality and allow small-scale possession and production. They only go after, in earnest, the major cultivators, because those are the guys with the machine guns. Your local bong shop dealer ain't gonna shoot anyone. Neither is some HS kid with some percs he vicked from his mom or some kid w/ a bottle of Ritalin.

 

[tripleoption]

Accidental OD w/ OC just doesn't happen because the strength of the doses is well-known.

Yes, they do. I am not sure where you get your info, but from first hand experience, they happen all the time.