Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Steroids for Everyone! (Great Article)

heregothere

heregothere

New member
From this month's Wired Magazine --

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/view.html?pg=2



The first paragraph reads --

The Greeks had their gods and heroes. Twelfth-century Frenchmen celebrated dragon-slaying knights. We moderns have sports heroes. Friedrich Nietzsche explained it all in 1883: Every culture needs the übermensch ("over-man") to make lesser mortals - the rest of us - feel pride in our shared humanity.
 
liquidmuscle: following your reasoning, is everyone who has an opinion biased?

Even though I don't necessarily believe that steroids in sports are a good thing, I thought this was a well-articulated article and the first rational reasoning I had seen supporting steroid use in professional athletics.
 
Here's the thing with this article. If steroids were to become legal, you would have to have 2 tee ball leagues as well. You would have 13 year old kids on sustanon and fathers giving their son's dbol for breakfast before school with the hopes of them growing into a retirement plan.
 
Themachine01 said:
Here's the thing with this article. If steroids were to become legal, you would have to have 2 tee ball leagues as well. You would have 13 year old kids on sustanon and fathers giving their son's dbol for breakfast before school with the hopes of them growing into a retirement plan.
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe this?
 
strongsmartsexy said:
Do you actually believe this?
Click to expand...

If you we are talking about the article, yes. If steroids were to become legal, whats to stop kids? an over 18 law? I think Ive heard of kids under the age of 18 smoking cigarettes. How? Other people, over 18 buying them for them.

It all would depend on what the details were of the law, if they were to legalized. Of course this will never happen so who cares?
 
Themachine01 said:
Here's the thing with this article. If steroids were to become legal, you would have to have 2 tee ball leagues as well. You would have 13 year old kids on sustanon and fathers giving their son's dbol for breakfast before school with the hopes of them growing into a retirement plan.
Click to expand...

There is some truth to this, there are many parents out there that are entirely obsessed with making their children into something they're not. Legalization for EVERYONE would certainly create an athletic environment with a proclivity for abuse. Decriminalization is probably the best thing.
 
Themachine01 said:
If you we are talking about the article, yes. If steroids were to become legal, whats to stop kids? an over 18 law? I think Ive heard of kids under the age of 18 smoking cigarettes. How? Other people, over 18 buying them for them.

It all would depend on what the details were of the law, if they were to legalized. Of course this will never happen so who cares?
Click to expand...

Kids can get steroids and other illegal drugs now, completel unmonitored.

I was a teenager when steroids weren't on Schedule III. There wasn't rampant use of them, nor were fathers creating an environment forcing their kids to use them.

Steroids ARE legal with a doctor's prescription. The only thing that has changed in the advent of the Steroid Control Act is that they are now Schedule III controlled. Even this hasn't stopped people from obtaining and using them.

The analogy to cigarettes doesn't work. Even if steroids were pulled out of Schedule III, they'd still have to be obtained by prescription. Cigarettes can be purchased over the counter at stores everywhere.
 
Nighthawkk said:
There is some truth to this, there are many parents out there that are entirely obsessed with making their children into something they're not. Legalization for EVERYONE would certainly create an athletic environment with a proclivity for abuse. Decriminalization is probably the best thing.
Click to expand...

This environment existed prior to the Steroid Control Act. The scenario you suggested did not occur.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
Kids can get steroids and other illegal drugs now, completel unmonitored.

I was a teenager when steroids weren't on Schedule III. There wasn't rampant use of them, nor were fathers creating an environment forcing their kids to use them.

Steroids ARE legal with a doctor's prescription. The only thing that has changed in the advent of the Steroid Control Act is that they are now Schedule III controlled. Even this hasn't stopped people from obtaining and using them.

The analogy to cigarettes doesn't work. Even if steroids were pulled out of Schedule III, they'd still have to be obtained by prescription. Cigarettes can be purchased over the counter at stores everywhere.
Click to expand...


Unless I misunderstood the article, I dont remember where it said only legel by prescription. What would be the reason for the prescription, being an athlete? Thats not what the article is about. I dont think the article was meant to be about pulling steroids from schedule III, it was about legalizing them, for all athletes to use. So then, yes, the cigarette analogy does work.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
This environment existed prior to the Steroid Control Act. The scenario you suggested did not occur.
Click to expand...


Again, same thing I stated above. They were only legal via prescription. Meaning the author of the article would be stating every athlete would have a prescription to AS. "Hi Doc, Im a baseball player", "OK, sounds good, heres a good cycle I can prescribe you."

Thats not what the article is about.
 
Themachine01 said:
Unless I misunderstood the article, I dont remember where it said only legel by prescription. What would be the reason for the prescription, being an athlete? Thats not what the article is about. I dont think the article was meant to be about pulling steroids from schedule III, it was about legalizing them, for all athletes to use. So then, yes, the cigarette analogy does work.
Click to expand...

They are LEGAL now. They are Schedule III drugs. Available with a doctor's prescription and obtained at a pharmacy.

Even if they were to remove them from Schedule III, they'd still be under control of a physicians prescription and still obtained at a pharmacy.

Allowing athletes to use them will STILL require a prescription and have the drugs obtained at a pharmacy.

The cigarette analogy fails miserably.
 
Themachine01 said:
Again, same thing I stated above. They were only legal via prescription. Meaning the author of the article would be stating every athlete would have a prescription to AS. "Hi Doc, Im a baseball player", "OK, sounds good, heres a good cycle I can prescribe you."

Thats not what the article is about.
Click to expand...

Quoted from the article. Ignoring the fact that steroids ARE LEGAL, which the author has clearly overlooked or is ignorant of.

"Once legalized, drug use would still have limits, but they would be established by physicians and athletes - based on their ability to handle performance enhancers."
 
Your thinking about this differently than I am, its not a complicated analogy, its quite simple. Cigarettes are illegal for anyone under 18 to buy, right. Well, if they were to make steroids legal, Im simply stating that they would most likely put limitations on who can and cannot buy them, just like cigarettes.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying, but that is not what the article is about. This thread is simply about the article, which is what Im talking about. I know they are legal right now. I know they are schedule III, thanks. BUT, I repeat, BUT, the article is stating to LEGALIZE steroids, and have a physician establish the limits (directly from the article), same with aspirin. Understand what Im saying here. This is a pointless argument. You are not reading the article.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
Quoted from the article. Ignoring the fact that steroids ARE LEGAL, which the author has clearly overlooked or is ignorant of.

"Once legalized, drug use would still have limits, but they would be established by physicians and athletes - based on their ability to handle performance enhancers."
Click to expand...


Right, 'a physician will establish the limits' ---------------------- thankyou!

It does not say a physician will prescribe the actual AS. A physician is responsible for establishing limits for tons of different OTC drugs.
 
Themachine01 said:
Your thinking about this differently than I am, its not a complicated analogy, its quite simple. Cigarettes are illegal for anyone under 18 to buy, right. Well, if they were to make steroids legal, Im simply stating that they would most likely put limitations on who can and cannot buy them, just like cigarettes.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying, but that is not what the article is about. This thread is simply about the article, which is what Im talking about. I know they are legal right now. I know they are schedule III, thanks. BUT, I repeat, BUT, the article is stating to LEGALIZE steroids, and have a physician establish the limits (directly from the article), same with aspirin. Understand what Im saying here. This is a pointless argument. You are not reading the article.
Click to expand...

I have read the article three times already.. I'm ignoring the author stating to "Legalize" them now, since they ARE legal. So, either the author is entirely stupid, or is just misundertanding what he's talking about. Either of which doesn't detract from the issue he's bringing up with regards to steroid use with professional athletes.

Cigarettes do not require a prescription for use. They're just legislated for use at a certain age group. Steroids DO and would continue to require a prescription even under the authors suggestion.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
I have read the article three times already.. I'm ignoring the author stating to "Legalize" them now, since they ARE legal. So, either the author is entirely stupid, or is just misundertanding what he's talking about. Either of which doesn't detract from the issue he's bringing up with regards to steroid use with professional athletes.

Cigarettes do not require a prescription for use. They're just legislated for use at a certain age group. Steroids DO and would continue to require a prescription even under the authors suggestion.
Click to expand...

Im not gonna argue this anymore, your pretty much rewriting the article to fit your side of the argument. My analogy was based on the ORIGINAL article, where the author states steroids to be "LEGALIZED"!!!!!!!! Which means no prescription!!!! I dont know what your rewritten version is.

If you wish to continue this argument, Im sorry, discussion, then let me read your version of the article, I probably wont use the cigarette analogy.
 
Themachine01 said:
Im not gonna argue this anymore, your pretty much rewriting the article to fit your side of the argument. My analogy was based on the ORIGINAL article, where the author states steroids to be "LEGALIZED"!!!!!!!! Which means no prescription!!!! I dont know what your rewritten version is.

If you wish to continue this argument, Im sorry, discussion, then let me read your version of the article, I probably wont use the cigarette analogy.
Click to expand...

What does "Legalized" mean to you when you read it? And how does Legalized mean no prescription? I didn't see that translation in the article. And, how is it you feel I"m rewriting it?

It seems that his assertion is that, however the laws are changed/rewritten, athletes should be able to use AAS under guidelines from a doctor along with the athletes. And that if they want to have "natural" and enhanced leagues to do that.

Did I miss anything?
 
Themachine01 said:
My analogy was based on the ORIGINAL article, where the author states steroids to be "LEGALIZED"!!!!!!!! Which means no prescription!!!! I dont know what your rewritten version is.
Click to expand...

SO, you arbitarily changed legalized to mean "no prescription" and then tell me that I rewrote the version???
 
Last edited:
Im not saying that "either the author is entirely stupid, or is just misundertanding what he's talking about.", therefore changing the author;s thinking, Im simply reading what he wrote and taking the meaning from that. I dont give a shit, email the author find out what he meant, who gives a shit. He never says in the article "Legalized, but still with prescription" What the hell would be the point of that??????? You said it yourself, it is already legal with a prescription, so when he says if steroids were to become legalized, that would mean WITHOUT prescription. He is writing the article explaining a 'what if', there would be no point of the article if he was talking about legalized with a prescription, that is the way the law is now, which you seem to already.

Your honestly not making any sense here, not being a dick bro.
 
Themachine01 said:
Im not saying that "either the author is entirely stupid, or is just misundertanding what he's talking about.", therefore changing the author;s thinking, Im simply reading what he wrote and taking the meaning from that. I dont give a shit, email the author find out what he meant, who gives a shit. He never says in the article "Legalized, but still with prescription" What the hell would be the point of that??????? You said it yourself, it is already legal with a prescription, so when he says if steroids were to become legalized, that would mean WITHOUT prescription. He is writing the article explaining a 'what if', there would be no point of the article if he was talking about legalized with a prescription, that is the way the law is now, which you seem to already.

Your honestly not making any sense here, not being a dick bro.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You're translating "legalized" as to be without a prescription. The author does not make that assertion. And because of that I'm not making any sense?
 
well if its already legal with a prescription, what would be the purpose of the article if he didnt mean legal without prescription. Proper interpretation of the article. Enough of this bro, you started the argument but misread the article. No biggie.
 
I too remember when steroids were "legal" (not too long ago in the 80's). I also remember that there was no "rampant" use by kids, although everyone on the high school football team that elected to use them knew the right doc to go to go "get" a perscription. Even with that scenario - only a handfull of guys juiced at that age (I did not). I don't think fears about legalization will cause out of control use. Really, think about it, as a dad, do you REALLY want to be endorsing AAS in YOUR kid. Sure, some people might - but you can't stop people from being stupid - and those types of people probably help their kids get AAS now even though they are illegal.
 
I'd just like to put in my two cents worth here. Yes, doctors can prescribe steroids legally, but the problem with that is that the FDA has only approved about six steroids to be used by doctors. On the black market, there about 50 types that you can choose from with the right amount of effects and sides that you can tolerate. For example, your doctor cannot write a script for D-bol although we know from this board how popular a steroid that is. Thanks! Alan.
 
alanchiras said:
I'd just like to put in my two cents worth here. Yes, doctors can prescribe steroids legally, but the problem with that is that the FDA has only approved about six steroids to be used by doctors. On the black market, there about 50 types that you can choose from with the right amount of effects and sides that you can tolerate. For example, your doctor cannot write a script for D-bol although we know from this board how popular a steroid that is. Thanks! Alan.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is truely sad. Especially for those with various wasting diseases. They should have access to anything they need.

I find it irritating when congress takes medicine out of the hands of the physicians and starts legislating treatments. The current status in the US doesn't allow for the advancement of the use of AAS because there isn't a path for the doctors and pharmacies to make money under the current legistlated uses.

I'd rather see it drop off of Schedule III and put the decisions back into the hands of doctors and their patients. Whether they remove the artificial limits in professional sports doesn't matter to me. People and athletes are going to use AAS, so make sure there is a safe environment for them to do so and learn from the benefits and side effects of use. As with anything else, sadly, things will get abused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom