I don't think this is trolling - this is a fair enough question. AAS DO have adverse side effects, long term ones too.
This is why you wont find many recommendations on this site by those considered vets, to stay on, or to blast and cruise. The choice to do so is personal, and although i do - i am also only too aware of the potential risks i am putting on myself.
Blood tests, medical check-ups and an all around healthy lifestyle (no smoking, drugs or drinking - whatsoever) make this risk in lifestyle for my bodybuilding goals much less risky.
The truth is though that steroids have been studied thoroughly - i recommend you look to www.endojournals.org - it is an excellent resource used by many here that is primarily about endocrinology of course - but due to the nature of the drugs in question, they have a large article base there.
The way that most if not all Pro bodybuilders use AAS is often a hell of a far cry from what is recommended here - short, effective cycles with at least the same amount of time off.. meaning over 1 year, one spends more time 'clean' than on gear.
Steroids CAN be dangerous to people when used long term - this is commonly known IMO, but what is less commonly known is that they can also be a very effective, minimally risky way to increase muscle and strengthin the 'normal' populace.
The correct use of ancillary drugs is paramount in the safest use of these drugs, and this is often the topic of conversation here.
Peptides on the other hand are less well researched, and even as soon as potential PED are researched (not yet on the market) - you can be sure that bodybuilders across the globe will be getting some to try in very large doses!
This is both reckless and very useful. Those people DO genuinely have a slightly bigger lust for muscle/strength than for their health (and i am actually similar), which could be considered either reckless OR very committed. However, they are also a large group of very well educated and experienced HUMAN TRIALS - acting as both the guinea pig and scientist.
It is fair to say, that without the use of steroids over the past 60 years, there would be no-where near the understanding we have, as most of this 'anecdotal' evidence is the most important evidence around - i mean, i have read 100 rodent based trials that proved a drug/peptide the best muscle growth (think IGF-1 LR3) available, yet in humans - it sorely lacks.
It goes to show that a sister vertebrate with a few different genes, can actually be very very different indeed.
Look at the fruit fly.