Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
thefantom1
New member
Sorry if it's been posted already 50 times... its a good read though.....
THE LANGUAGE OF STEROID LAW REFORM
Posted by: Rick Collins [Monday, June 24, 2002]
COPYRIGHT (c) 2000 by Rick Collins, www.SteroidLaw.com. All rights reserved. No commercial reproduction of any portion of this material is permitted without the express written permission of the author.
Words are powerful tools of expression. They are also vessels that often carry heavy cargo, including strong positive or negative associations. This cargo is derived from the so-called body of "common knowledge," a reservoir of information too often fed by poorly investigated media reports, intentionally misleading propaganda and hyperbolic rhetoric.
According to the body of common knowledge, anabolic steroids are dangerous and deadly drugs. The lay media, spoon-fed scary sound bites by government-sponsored steroid "experts," have thoroughly demonized these hormones for several decades. In fact, the use of any amount of steroids to improve sports performance or physique appearance is invariably labeled anabolic steroid "abuse" (regardless of the specifics involved).1 Consequently, the average American lumps the athletic steroid user into the same depraved category as the heroin or cocaine user, and law enforcement agents and prosecutors proceed accordingly in furtherance of our "war on drugs." Understandably then, the proposition that our current approach to the non-medical use of anabolic steroids is flawed, failing and in dire need of reform is quite provocative to those outside the bodybuilding community. Loaded words like "legalization" or "decriminalization" of anabolic steroids strike fear in the hearts of the general public, foreclosing the possibility of any productive debate in the political arena.
While never reported by the media, there are actually very compelling reasons to revisit the legitimacy of our current anabolic steroid laws. For example, there is mounting evidence that the dangers associated with anabolic steroids are significantly less than were presented to Congress or are reported to the public.2 Further, there is abundant proof that many of the dangers associated with steroid use have not been solved or even helped by the government's approach; rather, they've been made much worse.3 Given the circumstances, it may well be an imprudent use of our government resources and tax dollars to be turning adult Americans into convicted criminals if they choose to use steroids for physical improvement.
If at this point we accept that our state and national laws and policies regarding the use of anabolic steroids for cosmetic enhancement should be reexamined, the first step toward serious debate must be to address the baggage that clings to so many of the relevant terms. To begin with, the term "anabolic steroids" is today almost inflammatory. It is deeply saturated with negativity, inextricably bound to images of drug abuse, athletic cheating and violent rages. After so many years of bad press, the very words may never be suitable for objective discussion. While it is possible that recent positive publicity for these hormones in the field of AIDS and HIV therapy may help to one day change public perceptions,4 that day is still a long way off.5 Part of the problem is that the government and certain members of the scientific and medical community are convinced that the surest way to combat steroid use by teenagers is to scare the daylights out of them.6 This was deemed to be best accomplished by falsely inflating the risk of virtually all potential side effects while withholding information that might reveal the truth (for example, flatly claiming without qualification that "steroids cause liver cancer" when many steroids have little or no effect on the liver, and when the studies associating steroids with liver problems mostly involved very sick geriatric patients). Organizations like NIDA and the medical community in general have historically believed that all public commentary about androgens should be relentlessly negative, the rationale being that any honest assessment of the real health risks would open the door to much more widespread use by our youth. It is time to accept that the proverbial cat has long been out of the bag. The scare tactic approach was mocked and discounted many years ago, and the so-called "experts" quoted so often in the media have been summarily dismissed as government-supported toadies. Consequently, the scare tactic approach seems to have backfired. Because these folks lied and misled about many of the side effects, young bodybuilders have predictably concluded that they lied about them all. Of course, the conclusion that there really are no adverse consequences to using steroids is simply not the case. But in order to get that message across, and to effectively discourage teen usage of androgens, it may well be time to increase the level of honesty.7
Further confounding the situation, words like "legalization" and "decriminalization" carry their own baggage. While the founders of the grassroots web site located at www.decriminalizesteroids.com appropriately incorporated these attention-getting words into their domain names, for general purposes the word "reformation" might be both more suitable and accurate. A word like "legalization" seems to condone or publicly support an activity, and implies unrestricted availability. Of course, such a situation would be wildly inappropriate. Alcohol, for example, is available to adults but not to children; further, selling alcohol without authorization is illegal. Similarly, androgens should never be available to children or adolescents, and selling them without authorization should be a serious crime. But androgens (just like cosmetic surgery procedures) should be available to informed and responsible adults seeking to use them for cosmetic improvement. The presently existing situation, in which doctors have been virtually erased from the picture and legitimate products have been replaced by questionable black market goods sold by gym dealers or overseas web sites, is completely backwards. Qualified physicians should prescribe and administer the use of these hormones, properly screening and monitoring their patients. Indeed, reformation of our laws is sorely needed.
The resistance to reformation of our laws in this area is due in part to the various loaded words involved. These words and their baggage have perpetuated the enforcement of laws that have done little to help the problems they were enacted to address. They have effectively precluded fruitful research into these hormones, except those studies funded by anti-steroid organizations in support of their agenda. And they have discouraged the true authorities in this field from publicly taking a stand and speaking out against the government's approach. This writer has conferred with many of the top international medical and scientific experts in the field of anabolic steroids. Many of the authorities who are so quick to offer an anti-steroid sound bite to the media offer quite different commentary when speaking "off the record." Those few authorities who take public issue with the anti-steroid crowd are subject to attack.8 Not surprisingly, those experts who have spoken out in favor of truth and honest information are less and less vocal. Whether their shyness is viewed as keen self-interest or sheer cowardice, many knowledgeable authorities who strongly support steroid law reform in private are too frightened to champion the cause publicly for fear of jeopardizing lucrative endorsement contracts, corporate funding or institutional/academic advancement.
Meanwhile, androgen use for physique enhancement continues to be far more dangerous than it needs to be, and law enforcement agents and the courts continue to investigate and prosecute situations of personal use possession of androgens, branding adult Americans with criminal records and sometimes even jail time. Our steroid laws must be reformed, and it is high time for enlightened adults - especially the authorities in the field - to find the courage and the words to voice their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to consider the currently accepted judgment that any use of anabolic steroids (androgens) for cosmetic enhancement is per se abuse. What makes it "abuse" - the fact that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) or some other government agency doesn't like it? Or is it the fact that androgens are not "medically accepted" for cosmetic enhancement (although, curiously, far more dangerous surgical procedures are considered perfectly proper)? Shouldn't "abuse" be based upon factors such as refusing to be medically monitored or refusing to discontinue usage? And why isn't any consumption of alcohol - also a drug - per se abuse?
For this author's evaluation of the medical literature, please see The Real Health Risks of Anabolic Steroids at www.SteroidLaw.com.
For this author's review of the evidence and analysis of the issues, see Do Our Anabolic Steroid Laws Work? at www.SteroidLaw.com.
For a groundbreaking and readable examination of the benefits of anabolic steroids for HIV(+) men and women, see Built to Survive! by Michael Mooney and Nelson Vergel (available through www.medibolics.com).
In the meantime, perhaps using less incendiary terms may be helpful. A word like "androgens" seems to carry less baggage. Interestingly, the term "testosterone replacement therapy" has actually acquired very positive connotations for its wonderful libido-increasing, anti-aging effects. It is questionable as to whether the media and public would be so supportive if the medical and pharmaceutical authorities involved called it what is actually is: anabolic steroid therapy.
These members were forced to abandon their previous approach - to scare the daylights out of teenagers while simultaneously convincing them that steroids don't work - when news of the scientific confirmation of what every bodybuilder knew since the 1960s leaked out to the public in the 1980s. Steroids work, perhaps too well.
It is not my present purpose to debate the best way to reduce adolescent usage. There are a number of web sites designed to discourage teen usage, such as those sponsored by NIDA or the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information. ATLAS (Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids) is a drug prevention program designed for high school male athletes utilizing a hands-on-approach with interactive activities. It combines ten 45-minute classroom sessions with three exercise sessions in the weight room www.ohsu.edu/som-hpsm/atlas.htm.
In "Gen XXL," an article in the baseball preview issue (April 3, '00) of ESPN The Magazine, noted steroid researcher Jose Antonio, PhD accurately stated that there is "plenty of evidence that the supposed ill effects of using steroids are way overblown." He then made the further mistake of asserting that he could safely administer certain dosages of steroids to athletes for increased muscle mass and reduced fat "with no side effects." While he may have gone a bit too far when he "guarantee(d) it," his overall statements were probably more scientifically accurate than almost anything else presented in the lay press. Nevertheless, veteran FLEX magazine editor Jim Schmaltz, assisted by anti-steroid commentators Jeff Feliciano, James Wright, PhD and Gary Wadler, MD, swarmed and "fumed" over these "inflammatory and indefensible assertions" ("Who's On What?, FLEX, July '00), claiming to be "shocked" by dosages that were in fact safely administered in at least one controlled 1996 study. It may be surmised that after all the posturing, the real problem that these commentators had with Dr. Antonio's statements was not with their accuracy but with (in Wright's words) what "these comments tell a young athlete." While concerns over our impressionable young athletes are not insignificant, the end result of all this is a decided "chilling effect" upon any opinion dissenting from the party line, even an honest one. (It must be noted that FLEX magazine itself raises hypocrisy to an art form, lambasting those who have perpetuated "a drug mythology that puts steroids on a pedestal" while failing to acknowledge the "Drug World" column that was a staple in every issue not so long ago.)
THE LANGUAGE OF STEROID LAW REFORM
Posted by: Rick Collins [Monday, June 24, 2002]
COPYRIGHT (c) 2000 by Rick Collins, www.SteroidLaw.com. All rights reserved. No commercial reproduction of any portion of this material is permitted without the express written permission of the author.
Words are powerful tools of expression. They are also vessels that often carry heavy cargo, including strong positive or negative associations. This cargo is derived from the so-called body of "common knowledge," a reservoir of information too often fed by poorly investigated media reports, intentionally misleading propaganda and hyperbolic rhetoric.
According to the body of common knowledge, anabolic steroids are dangerous and deadly drugs. The lay media, spoon-fed scary sound bites by government-sponsored steroid "experts," have thoroughly demonized these hormones for several decades. In fact, the use of any amount of steroids to improve sports performance or physique appearance is invariably labeled anabolic steroid "abuse" (regardless of the specifics involved).1 Consequently, the average American lumps the athletic steroid user into the same depraved category as the heroin or cocaine user, and law enforcement agents and prosecutors proceed accordingly in furtherance of our "war on drugs." Understandably then, the proposition that our current approach to the non-medical use of anabolic steroids is flawed, failing and in dire need of reform is quite provocative to those outside the bodybuilding community. Loaded words like "legalization" or "decriminalization" of anabolic steroids strike fear in the hearts of the general public, foreclosing the possibility of any productive debate in the political arena.
While never reported by the media, there are actually very compelling reasons to revisit the legitimacy of our current anabolic steroid laws. For example, there is mounting evidence that the dangers associated with anabolic steroids are significantly less than were presented to Congress or are reported to the public.2 Further, there is abundant proof that many of the dangers associated with steroid use have not been solved or even helped by the government's approach; rather, they've been made much worse.3 Given the circumstances, it may well be an imprudent use of our government resources and tax dollars to be turning adult Americans into convicted criminals if they choose to use steroids for physical improvement.
If at this point we accept that our state and national laws and policies regarding the use of anabolic steroids for cosmetic enhancement should be reexamined, the first step toward serious debate must be to address the baggage that clings to so many of the relevant terms. To begin with, the term "anabolic steroids" is today almost inflammatory. It is deeply saturated with negativity, inextricably bound to images of drug abuse, athletic cheating and violent rages. After so many years of bad press, the very words may never be suitable for objective discussion. While it is possible that recent positive publicity for these hormones in the field of AIDS and HIV therapy may help to one day change public perceptions,4 that day is still a long way off.5 Part of the problem is that the government and certain members of the scientific and medical community are convinced that the surest way to combat steroid use by teenagers is to scare the daylights out of them.6 This was deemed to be best accomplished by falsely inflating the risk of virtually all potential side effects while withholding information that might reveal the truth (for example, flatly claiming without qualification that "steroids cause liver cancer" when many steroids have little or no effect on the liver, and when the studies associating steroids with liver problems mostly involved very sick geriatric patients). Organizations like NIDA and the medical community in general have historically believed that all public commentary about androgens should be relentlessly negative, the rationale being that any honest assessment of the real health risks would open the door to much more widespread use by our youth. It is time to accept that the proverbial cat has long been out of the bag. The scare tactic approach was mocked and discounted many years ago, and the so-called "experts" quoted so often in the media have been summarily dismissed as government-supported toadies. Consequently, the scare tactic approach seems to have backfired. Because these folks lied and misled about many of the side effects, young bodybuilders have predictably concluded that they lied about them all. Of course, the conclusion that there really are no adverse consequences to using steroids is simply not the case. But in order to get that message across, and to effectively discourage teen usage of androgens, it may well be time to increase the level of honesty.7
Further confounding the situation, words like "legalization" and "decriminalization" carry their own baggage. While the founders of the grassroots web site located at www.decriminalizesteroids.com appropriately incorporated these attention-getting words into their domain names, for general purposes the word "reformation" might be both more suitable and accurate. A word like "legalization" seems to condone or publicly support an activity, and implies unrestricted availability. Of course, such a situation would be wildly inappropriate. Alcohol, for example, is available to adults but not to children; further, selling alcohol without authorization is illegal. Similarly, androgens should never be available to children or adolescents, and selling them without authorization should be a serious crime. But androgens (just like cosmetic surgery procedures) should be available to informed and responsible adults seeking to use them for cosmetic improvement. The presently existing situation, in which doctors have been virtually erased from the picture and legitimate products have been replaced by questionable black market goods sold by gym dealers or overseas web sites, is completely backwards. Qualified physicians should prescribe and administer the use of these hormones, properly screening and monitoring their patients. Indeed, reformation of our laws is sorely needed.
The resistance to reformation of our laws in this area is due in part to the various loaded words involved. These words and their baggage have perpetuated the enforcement of laws that have done little to help the problems they were enacted to address. They have effectively precluded fruitful research into these hormones, except those studies funded by anti-steroid organizations in support of their agenda. And they have discouraged the true authorities in this field from publicly taking a stand and speaking out against the government's approach. This writer has conferred with many of the top international medical and scientific experts in the field of anabolic steroids. Many of the authorities who are so quick to offer an anti-steroid sound bite to the media offer quite different commentary when speaking "off the record." Those few authorities who take public issue with the anti-steroid crowd are subject to attack.8 Not surprisingly, those experts who have spoken out in favor of truth and honest information are less and less vocal. Whether their shyness is viewed as keen self-interest or sheer cowardice, many knowledgeable authorities who strongly support steroid law reform in private are too frightened to champion the cause publicly for fear of jeopardizing lucrative endorsement contracts, corporate funding or institutional/academic advancement.
Meanwhile, androgen use for physique enhancement continues to be far more dangerous than it needs to be, and law enforcement agents and the courts continue to investigate and prosecute situations of personal use possession of androgens, branding adult Americans with criminal records and sometimes even jail time. Our steroid laws must be reformed, and it is high time for enlightened adults - especially the authorities in the field - to find the courage and the words to voice their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to consider the currently accepted judgment that any use of anabolic steroids (androgens) for cosmetic enhancement is per se abuse. What makes it "abuse" - the fact that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) or some other government agency doesn't like it? Or is it the fact that androgens are not "medically accepted" for cosmetic enhancement (although, curiously, far more dangerous surgical procedures are considered perfectly proper)? Shouldn't "abuse" be based upon factors such as refusing to be medically monitored or refusing to discontinue usage? And why isn't any consumption of alcohol - also a drug - per se abuse?
For this author's evaluation of the medical literature, please see The Real Health Risks of Anabolic Steroids at www.SteroidLaw.com.
For this author's review of the evidence and analysis of the issues, see Do Our Anabolic Steroid Laws Work? at www.SteroidLaw.com.
For a groundbreaking and readable examination of the benefits of anabolic steroids for HIV(+) men and women, see Built to Survive! by Michael Mooney and Nelson Vergel (available through www.medibolics.com).
In the meantime, perhaps using less incendiary terms may be helpful. A word like "androgens" seems to carry less baggage. Interestingly, the term "testosterone replacement therapy" has actually acquired very positive connotations for its wonderful libido-increasing, anti-aging effects. It is questionable as to whether the media and public would be so supportive if the medical and pharmaceutical authorities involved called it what is actually is: anabolic steroid therapy.
These members were forced to abandon their previous approach - to scare the daylights out of teenagers while simultaneously convincing them that steroids don't work - when news of the scientific confirmation of what every bodybuilder knew since the 1960s leaked out to the public in the 1980s. Steroids work, perhaps too well.
It is not my present purpose to debate the best way to reduce adolescent usage. There are a number of web sites designed to discourage teen usage, such as those sponsored by NIDA or the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information. ATLAS (Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids) is a drug prevention program designed for high school male athletes utilizing a hands-on-approach with interactive activities. It combines ten 45-minute classroom sessions with three exercise sessions in the weight room www.ohsu.edu/som-hpsm/atlas.htm.
In "Gen XXL," an article in the baseball preview issue (April 3, '00) of ESPN The Magazine, noted steroid researcher Jose Antonio, PhD accurately stated that there is "plenty of evidence that the supposed ill effects of using steroids are way overblown." He then made the further mistake of asserting that he could safely administer certain dosages of steroids to athletes for increased muscle mass and reduced fat "with no side effects." While he may have gone a bit too far when he "guarantee(d) it," his overall statements were probably more scientifically accurate than almost anything else presented in the lay press. Nevertheless, veteran FLEX magazine editor Jim Schmaltz, assisted by anti-steroid commentators Jeff Feliciano, James Wright, PhD and Gary Wadler, MD, swarmed and "fumed" over these "inflammatory and indefensible assertions" ("Who's On What?, FLEX, July '00), claiming to be "shocked" by dosages that were in fact safely administered in at least one controlled 1996 study. It may be surmised that after all the posturing, the real problem that these commentators had with Dr. Antonio's statements was not with their accuracy but with (in Wright's words) what "these comments tell a young athlete." While concerns over our impressionable young athletes are not insignificant, the end result of all this is a decided "chilling effect" upon any opinion dissenting from the party line, even an honest one. (It must be noted that FLEX magazine itself raises hypocrisy to an art form, lambasting those who have perpetuated "a drug mythology that puts steroids on a pedestal" while failing to acknowledge the "Drug World" column that was a staple in every issue not so long ago.)
