T Nation

From the Idiots That Brought Ethanol

Comes this:
Making DHEA unavailable to the under 18 crowd. I bet all of the soccer moms feel safe now that little Johnny won’t be doing any DHEA:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_co/congress_steroids

"Meanwhile, a Senate Republican and Democrat on Tuesday announced legislation to limit access to performance-enhancing substances and stiffen criminal penalties for abuse and distribution.

Central to that effort is cracking down on the abuse of human growth hormone, a drug for which there is no reliable test, said its sponsor.

The bill by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would classify HGH as a “Schedule III” substance, equating it legally with anabolic steroids and bringing it under the watch of the Drug Enforcement Administration."

Seriously, these old pricks need to go stick their nose elsewhere and get the fuck out of the supplement world.

When’s this madness going to end? Why aren’t any big name athletes/bodybuilders starting an organization to get anabolics legalized? These big name mother fuckers need to grow a pair of balls, fess up to using, and start a movement to stop this ridiculous, asinine bullshit.

The problem comes with the view of steroids by the national population. They consider it cheating. To create or belong to a pro-roid institution would embarrass most athletes. They want to be seen as honorable, and it should be obvious that pride is probably an important quality among athletes in general.

What we really need are RETIRED athletes who’re no longer in the game to come out and talk about supplements and steroids. They not only are no longer in the game and have less to lose honor-wise, but some have experience with the way these drugs can greatly improve the lives of the elderly and post-peak men and women.

That’s why athletes need to step up and start to change the negative stereotype surrounding anabolics. Everyone in the leagues know the player next to them is using, so this whole charade of some kind of bullshit “honor” among sports is a joke.

The only people still buying into it is the naieve as hell public. I don’t know why anyone was acting shocked with the recent MLB report, are people really that stupid?

They’re doing a disservice to their fans by lying about what they’re doing. It’s time they stop acting like gutless fucking cowards and tell the public yes we’re using, yes it’s ok, you can stop the mass hysteria now.

[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:
Comes this:
Making DHEA unavailable to the under 18 crowd. I bet all of the soccer moms feel safe now that little Johnny won’t be doing any DHEA:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_co/congress_steroids [/quote]

I have no problem with this. Children aren’t allowed to do all sorts of things. Healthy 17 year olds do not need DHEA, nor are they responsible enough for their actions to choose to use it.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

I have no problem with this. Children aren’t allowed to do all sorts of things. Healthy 17 year olds do not need DHEA, nor are they responsible enough for their actions to choose to use it.[/quote]

So then, when they become 18, as opposed to 17 and 364 days for example, they suddenly acquire the wisdom to use DHEA? Heck, if it is really that “dangerous” why 18? Why not treat it like alcohol?
And while we’re at it, why not other supplements as well?

[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:

So then, when they become 18, as opposed to 17 and 364 days for example, they suddenly acquire the wisdom to use DHEA? Heck, if it is really that “dangerous” why 18? Why not treat it like alcohol?
And while we’re at it, why not other supplements as well? [/quote]

A bad criticism - line-drawing for this kind of thing will always be imprecise. Complaining that an age was picked does nothing to address the real problem - at what age should kids be eligible to do such things?

No one knows the magic age - that isn’t the point.

I think this is just an arbitrary line, like thunder says. There will always be these kinds of measures used when deciding when certain products are acceptable for use and when not; however, I am not so sure that this product warrants it.

What’s wrong with ethanol?

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
"Meanwhile, a Senate Republican and Democrat on Tuesday announced legislation to limit access to performance-enhancing substances and stiffen criminal penalties for abuse and distribution.

Central to that effort is cracking down on the abuse of human growth hormone, a drug for which there is no reliable test, said its sponsor.

The bill by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would classify HGH as a “Schedule III” substance, equating it legally with anabolic steroids and bringing it under the watch of the Drug Enforcement Administration."

… [/quote]

This is insanity. Schumer should roast in hell.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:

So then, when they become 18, as opposed to 17 and 364 days for example, they suddenly acquire the wisdom to use DHEA? Heck, if it is really that “dangerous” why 18? Why not treat it like alcohol?
And while we’re at it, why not other supplements as well?

A bad criticism - line-drawing for this kind of thing will always be imprecise. Complaining that an age was picked does nothing to address the real problem - at what age should kids be eligible to do such things?

No one knows the magic age - that isn’t the point.[/quote]

Explain this to me: The government already has pulled things like andro off of the shelves, right? So why then make DHEA an age issue if it is so dangerous?

[quote]pat36 wrote:
What’s wrong with ethanol?[/quote]

Maybe I will start another thread about this subject.

[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What’s wrong with ethanol?

Maybe I will start another thread about this subject.

[/quote]

Good plan.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What’s wrong with ethanol?

Maybe I will start another thread about this subject.

Good plan.[/quote]

+1

[quote]pat36 wrote:
What’s wrong with ethanol?[/quote]

  • Impairs one’s ability to make good decisions
  • Blurs vision
  • Decreases T-levels
  • Dehydrates the body
  • Screws up the immune system
  • Slows down reflexes
  • etc…

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What’s wrong with ethanol?

Maybe I will start another thread about this subject.

Good plan.

+1[/quote]

Are you kidding? What’s NOT wrong with it?

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What’s wrong with ethanol?

  • Impairs one’s ability to make good decisions
  • Blurs vision
  • Decreases T-levels
  • Dehydrates the body
  • Screws up the immune system
  • Slows down reflexes
  • etc…[/quote]

On that note, given this and the statistical similarities in terms of harm to society caused by alcohol vs other “hard” drugs, it’s hard to justify why ethanol wouldn’t be a shoe in as a schedule 1 drug if it were invented today. It’s objectively more dangerous and a greater drain on society than many outlawed drugs, yet since everyone is familiar with it along with the frequency and severity of consequences that go along with it, it remains an accepted, and even integral part of society. This should reflect on the state of drug laws in general, but the personalization and sensationalizing that goes on will never let it.

To the quoted list, we can add:
fairly strongly addictive
promotes violence behavior – If we wanted to be accurate we would qualify it by saying “in a significant minority of heavy (over)users”, but that doesn’t have the same effect on the popular consciousness as the unqualified statement.