Do schools disclose what they test for in drug tests?

[LebLlama]

My school requires a urine drug test. Ive used anabolic steroids, but havent since i started med school. im considering doing another cycle. I would like to know if my school tests for anabolic steroids, is there a way to find out? I know one drug they test for is adderall, which makes sense. Testing for anabolics in an academic institution doesn't make as much sense, but ya never know.

Is there a standardized list that schools search for?

This is sdn, so I'm sure I will get flamed for this. I understand, and I'll likely laugh along with you guys. But I hope there will be a few serious responses too.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Southplains]

I have no idea but I imagine that would be transparent information in the student handbook.

 

[DrCharlemagne]

Don't do drugs.

There is no* standard since not all schools even test. If you can find out the name of the test, you might be able to figure out what it covers.

Since you're likely only going to need to drop the UA once, why not wait until after orientation?

 

[LebLlama]

Thanks for the responses..

I'm actually a MS1, so past orientation already. I just had assumed I would have to take another test next fall. Maybe I won't... I'll check the student handbook too.

 

[Law2Doc]

They probably don't test for steroids and probably don't test annually. However if you are using non-over-the-counter injectable medications without a prescription I can almost guaranty you are violating your schools code of conduct. Not to mention incurring actual health risks. So no future doctor on here will likely advise you to "go ahead, don't sweat it".

 

[SunsFun]

I don't know about your school but I am willing to bet that at least several medical students are definitely cycling. We are in that demographic group with the highest rate of use.

 

[mulberry]

C'mon, brah. It's all about that caloric intake and clean bulking, brah. Taking the easy way out, brah? You know what we call you where I'm from? *****.

 

[Mad Jack]

Just keep in mind cycling is risking your future career. If you are busted with gear, you might lose your ability to obtain a DEA license. If you are tested prior to clinical rotations, be wary, as the test might be more stringent, especially if you rotate at state or federal government owned facilities. Just wait till you are a doc and ride bicycles in a resort in Thailand erry time you need a boost. Don't risk your career for that **** now.

 

[LebLlama]

However if you are using non-over-the-counter injectable medications without a prescription I can almost guaranty you are violating your schools code of conduct. Not to mention incurring actual health risks. So no future doctor on here will likely advise you to "go ahead, don't sweat it".

Yes, I understand that point of view. Though in my humble opinion its no worse than when half my class goes to the bars on Fridays to get drunk. One substance was legal and is now illegal, and the other substance was illegal and is now legal.
I can assure you that I'm not incurring any health risks. Its very safe (and even healthy) if you know what you're doing and you don't go overboard.

 

[LebLlama]

I don't know about your school but I am willing to bet that at least several medical students are definitely cycling. We are in that demographic group with the highest rate of use.

Ya im sure there are many others.

C'mon, brah. It's all about that caloric intake and clean bulking, brah. Taking the easy way out, brah? You know what we call you where I'm from? *****.

its a common misconception that its the easy way out. Its not as if you take steroids and you magically grow. It still takes hard work, consistently sound diet, and being extremely disciplined. Most bodybuilders know just as much about physiology and metabolism as doctors do. They have to in order to look the way the do.

But the people where youre from are entitled to their opinion.

Just keep in mind cycling is risking your future career. If you are busted with gear, you might lose your ability to obtain a DEA license. If you are tested prior to clinical rotations, be wary, as the test might be more stringent, especially if you rotate at state or federal government owned facilities. Just wait till you are a doc and ride bicycles in a resort in Thailand erry time you need a boost. Don't risk your career for that **** now.

Do they drug test before rotations? Before residencies?

That's the only thing that may stop me. I definitely don't want to risk my future. I can live without bodybuilding, but Im dedicated to my career. Maybe I'll wait til after I get my MD. Or maybe by then I'll have lost interest. Who knows.

 

[PrideNeverDie]

relax OP they won't find any gear on your drug test

my cousin cycled from college until today without ever getting popped

u a misc MD brah?

 

[LebLlama]

relax OP they won't find any gear on your drug test

my cousin cycled from college until today without ever getting popped

u a misc MD brah?

Is your cousin a physician now?

and lol no I'm not. I can't stand that whole crowd. I'm not one of the brahs at the gym. I'm the guy reading my flashcards for my classes in between sets I've even been known to bring my textbook in to read.

 

[PrideNeverDie]

Is your cousin a physician now?

and lol no I'm not. I can't stand that whole crowd. I'm not one of the brahs at the gym. I'm the guy reading my flashcards for my classes in between sets I've even been known to bring my textbook in to read.

he is an ortho and still juicing (yup he fits all the stereotypes too)

oh lord you are like my dad. sorry dad, but if you are reading on a treadmill you aren't going fast enough

there are plenty of guys that only study and go to the gym like my cousin

 

[dismorfik]

Natty is the way to go bruh.....

 

[Mad Jack]

Ya im sure there are many others.



its a common misconception that its the easy way out. Its not as if you take steroids and you magically grow. It still takes hard work, consistently sound diet, and being extremely disciplined. Most bodybuilders know just as much about physiology and metabolism as doctors do. They have to in order to look the way the do.

But the people where youre from are entitled to their opinion.



Do they drug test before rotations? Before residencies?

That's the only thing that may stop me. I definitely don't want to risk my future. I can live without bodybuilding, but Im dedicated to my career. Maybe I'll wait til after I get my MD. Or maybe by then I'll have lost interest. Who knows.

Most hospitals in my area require anyone rotating to then to be drug tested prior to starting, whether they're a nurse, medical student, or physician. Actually had to go to occupational health to do the same pre-employment screenings any employee would have to go through when I was starting clinically in undergrad. I doubt this policy is unique.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes, I understand that point of view. Though in my humble opinion its no worse than when half my class goes to the bars on Fridays to get drunk. One substance was legal and is now illegal, and the other substance was illegal and is now legal.
I can assure you that I'm not incurring any health risks. Its very safe (and even healthy) if you know what you're doing and you don't go overboard.

There's a huge difference between doing something legal vs illegal regardless of health risks -- one jeopardizes your career and one doesn't. Only a fool puts a future six digit salary in jeopardy for a few years of looking stronger at the beach. Also, you will learn in med school that there is no such thing as a "very safe" medication. ALL drugs have risks and side effects. We use every medication with caution, weighing benefits against risks. None are safe, but some address health risks that outweigh their bad effects, so we use them, cautiously. Anabolic steroids are actually an example of a drug that became illegal and got pulled off the market precisely for health risk reasons, so you are totally kidding yourself if you claim you "know what you are doing" without the requisite medical knowledge to make that statement. You are experimenting with something physicians have actually already declared unsafe, and touting it as "very safe". The fact that you made a statement downplaying the risks tells me you actually don't "know what you are doing". You are, in fact, assuming quite a lot if risk for a cosmetic benefit. Many people do -- Plastic surgery is based on that principal. But calling it very safe and comparing it's legal history to alcohol doesn't strengthen your argument IMHO. It just makes you sound like you spent too much time in the gym and too little in the books.

Anyhow see my above post regarding your initial question. Doubtful they drug test for this but it's still a pretty bad idea and can be career jeopardizing if you get caught. On no planet is it worth the risk professionally, even if you write off the health risks. I'm sure you will do what you want anyway, but at least do so knowing what you are doing rather than the "very safe" garbage in your above post.

 

[TeddyBoomBoom]

Testing for AAS is extremely expensive compared to regular drug screens. Neither a 10 or 15 drug panel, nor regular hair tests, test for AAS. Even military and LE does not test for gear unless given reason to (ie arrest for possession or CD)


You should be totally fine.

 

[LebLlama]

There's a huge difference between doing something legal vs illegal regardless of health risks -- one jeopardizes your career and one doesn't. Only a fool puts a future six digit salary in jeopardy for a few years of looking stronger at the beach. Also, you will learn in med school that there is no such thing as a "very safe" medication. ALL drugs have risks and side effects. We use every medication with caution, weighing benefits against risks. None are safe, but some address health risks that outweigh their bad effects, so we use them, cautiously. Anabolic steroids are actually an example of a drug that became illegal and got pulled off the market precisely for health risk reasons, so you are totally kidding yourself if you claim you "know what you are doing" without the requisite medical knowledge to make that statement. You are experimenting with something physicians have actually already declared unsafe, and touting it as "very safe". The fact that you made a statement downplaying the risks tells me you actually don't "know what you are doing". You are, in fact, assuming quite a lot if risk for a cosmetic benefit. Many people do -- Plastic surgery is based on that principal. But calling it very safe and comparing it's legal history to alcohol doesn't strengthen your argument IMHO. It just makes you sound like you spent too much time in the gym and too little in the books.
.

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset over this. I don't care enough to start a debate with you. I'm not looking for things to strengthen my argument, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to get on them. It's a personal choice. I do know what I'm doing, and how I go about things is completely safe. If you we're to do it, it wouldn't be safe, because you don't have the years of knowledge and experiences that I do. I don't need to prove anything or defend my position, feel free to believe what you wish.
I'm not a 20 something kid experimenting with drugs because I want to be the buffest guy at the beach and get all the girls, you don't know my background or motivation for my choices, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from talking down to me as if you did.

Your opinion is different from mine, thats totally fine, no reason to get into anything.

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset over this. I don't care enough to start a debate with you. I'm not looking for things to strengthen my argument, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to get on them. It's a personal choice. I do know what I'm doing, and how I go about things is completely safe. If you we're to do it, it wouldn't be safe, because you don't have the years of knowledge and experiences that I do. I don't need to prove anything or defend my position, feel free to believe what you wish.
I'm not a 20 something kid experimenting with drugs because I want to be the buffest guy at the beach and get all the girls, you don't know my background or motivation for my choices, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from talking down to me as if you did.

Your opinion is different from mine, thats totally fine, no reason to get into anything.

I'm not upset at all, just responding to a rather naive set of posts. You are free to read whatever intonation into the words you want, but like many other things on this thread, you probably will be wrong. as for injectable steroids, first they are illegal and second, not safe, even if you supposedly have years of knowledge and experience. If you in fact actually possessed the requisite knowledge, you wouldn't really be able to say its very safe. It's not. It's illegal now because it's not. But I suppose ignorance is bliss. You are taking what at best is a calculated risk. A knowledgable person would argue that he has weighed the risks, not suggest they don't exist. None of this is "my opinion" -- there already has been government action because of safety concerns. But fwiw, you are arguing with people with MDs about the safety of a medication, always a shrewd move -- nuff said. Good luck with that.

 

[LebLlama]

I'm not upset at all, just responding to a rather naive set of posts. You are free to read whatever intonation into the words you want, but like many other things on this thread, you probably will be wrong. as for injectable steroids, first they are illegal and second, not safe, even if you supposedly have years of knowledge and experience. If you in fact actually possessed the requisite knowledge, you wouldn't really be able to say its very safe. It's not. It's illegal now because it's not. But I suppose ignorance is bliss. You are taking what at best is a calculated risk. A knowledgable person would argue that he has weighed the risks, not suggest they don't exist. None of this is "my opinion" -- there already has been government action because of safety concerns. But fwiw, you are arguing with people with MDs about the safety of a medication, always a shrewd move -- nuff said. Good luck with that.

Your posts definitely seem emotionally driven. Why, who knows. Congrats on your MD, I bet you throw that out there to everyone you try to pick a fight with. In a few years ill have mine too(maybe that's what you can't stand), we'll see if I share your opinion by then on my safe methods.
I have to block you now, sorry..thanks for the input (the input that didn't include an ego trip and attempts to belittle)

So I guess all there is for you to do now is sit on the sidelines on your pedestal and judge me and my personal choices and hope I come down with cancer or something so you can say I told you so. I'm still waiting for Arnold to come down with some horrific fatal disease for his naive personal choices my self. What an incredible life he's had...


Thanks everyone else for your responses. I'm not sure i will do it again. I'm so busy now I probably can't spend enough time in the gym to get the most out of the cycle. Plus, I don't want to risk the black mark on my career. Ill see how things go.

 

[dismorfik]

I have to block you now, sorry..thanks for the input (the input that didn't include an ego trip and attempts to belittle)

I got nothing against roids and think you should go ahead with your cycle. But don't block people who don't tell you what you want to hear bro!!!!!!

 

[DH410]

Your posts definitely seem emotionally driven. Why, who knows. Congrats on your MD, I bet you throw that out there to everyone you try to pick a fight with. In a few years ill have mine too(maybe that's what you can't stand), we'll see if I share your opinion by then on my safe methods.
I have to block you now, sorry..thanks for the input (the input that didn't include an ego trip and attempts to belittle)

So I guess all there is for you to do now is sit on the sidelines on your pedestal and judge me and my personal choices and hope I come down with cancer or something so you can say I told you so. I'm still waiting for Arnold to come down with some horrific fatal disease for his naive personal choices my self. What an incredible life he's had...


Thanks everyone else for your responses. I'm not sure i will do it again. I'm so busy now I probably can't spend enough time in the gym to get the most out of the cycle. Plus, I don't want to risk the black mark on my career. Ill see how things go.

Hey Lebllama,

Before I begin, I understand you already made a decision on this, and I am not writing to support or attack your current position.

I just wanted to clarify some things. Based on his/her name I am guessing Law2doc is a jd first and an md second.. My experience with lawyers is that they tend to sound far more combative than they feel, especially in written form. They are rarely emotionally involved. My experience is mostly based on the many lawyers in my family, so take it FWIW.

Accusing a lawyer of emotional involvement because he sounds combative is like saying a rattlesnake must be angry because its bite is poisonous. Most lawyers I know default to strongly worded arguments because that is how they are trained, the same as the rattlesnake bite generally contains poison (If you believe I included this long-winded analogy just for the sake of comparing lawyers to snakes, you are correct).

Although you seem to have already take the position Law2Doc was advocating, I want to point out that ignoring a lawyer's legal advice is essentially equivalent to ignoring a doctor's medical advice. If I were in your position, I wouldn't do that.

Last piece of unsolicited advice: if you are wrong, the only way to find the truth is to follow the negative evidence. I would try to keep open to the argument that steroids are harmful if I were you. Similarly, I will try to keep open to the possibility that anabolic steroids benefits may outweigh the risks.

Good luck with whatever you do

 

[Mad Jack]

Your posts definitely seem emotionally driven. Why, who knows. Congrats on your MD, I bet you throw that out there to everyone you try to pick a fight with. In a few years ill have mine too(maybe that's what you can't stand), we'll see if I share your opinion by then on my safe methods.
I have to block you now, sorry..thanks for the input (the input that didn't include an ego trip and attempts to belittle)

So I guess all there is for you to do now is sit on the sidelines on your pedestal and judge me and my personal choices and hope I come down with cancer or something so you can say I told you so. I'm still waiting for Arnold to come down with some horrific fatal disease for his naive personal choices my self. What an incredible life he's had...


Thanks everyone else for your responses. I'm not sure i will do it again. I'm so busy now I probably can't spend enough time in the gym to get the most out of the cycle. Plus, I don't want to risk the black mark on my career. Ill see how things go.

They are not without risks. The risks depend entirely on your genetic profile. If you are prone to cancer, if you happen to be one of the people that suffers from cardiac hypertrophy because your heart muscle is too receptive to testosterone, if your clotting factors happen to have the genetic profile that causes them to react poorly to cycles and coagulate. Arnold had perfect genes for gear, he was lucky. Not everyone is. Finally, there is always the risk that you will get caught with your gear during a traffic stop or whatever- don't mess with Murphy's Law. You get busted once and you will probably lose your prescriptive privileges for life.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

Im not going to get on your back about cycling, but you really should not be posting about it online. I just did a quick look through your post history, and you have posted more than enough identifying information about yourself for any who works at your school to pinpoint who you are.

 

[werd]

as suggested above, it's unlikely that anabolic steroids would be on your drug test. the drugs your school would be looking for are opiates, cocaine, etc. the standard urine drug screens i used to order as an intern had those sorts of things on them, not steroids and "performance enhancing drugs."
still, i agree with l2d et.al. and think it's a bad idea to do what you're doing, even if you're unlikely to be found out.

 

[Etorphine]

I do not think law2doc's reasoning is in any way emotionally driven, nor do I think his writings demonstrate any sort of ego-boosting as you imply, LebLlama.

 

[Dires]

Im not going to get on your back about cycling, but you really should not be posting about it online. I just did a quick look through your post history, and you have posted more than enough identifying information about yourself for any who works at your school to pinpoint who you are.

This.

 

[SunsFun]

I'm not upset at all, just responding to a rather naive set of posts. You are free to read whatever intonation into the words you want, but like many other things on this thread, you probably will be wrong. as for injectable steroids, first they are illegal and second, not safe, even if you supposedly have years of knowledge and experience. If you in fact actually possessed the requisite knowledge, you wouldn't really be able to say its very safe. It's not. It's illegal now because it's not. But I suppose ignorance is bliss. You are taking what at best is a calculated risk. A knowledgable person would argue that he has weighed the risks, not suggest they don't exist. None of this is "my opinion" -- there already has been government action because of safety concerns. But fwiw, you are arguing with people with MDs about the safety of a medication, always a shrewd move -- nuff said. Good luck with that.

I agree with most of what you're saying here but I am not too sure about one thing. From all of the information I've seen on the subject the anabolic steroids seem to be illegal not due to some scientific justification of their harm but because people hate their use in competitive sports. Many fans feel like athletes who take roids cheat and should be punished. Also, it seems like people whose teenager kids got their hands on them and subsequently committed suicide are convinced that it was steroids they dd it (despite not having any direct proof). I am not saying that there are no dangers and people should inject anabolic steroids but I wouldn't be too quick to give our government any credit at all for protecting the public when it comes to drug laws in America. Lets not forget the designer steroid and other "supplements" industry eager to protect its profits.

My position is that a person (consenting adult who understand the risks) should be able to do whatever he/she wants with his body as long as it does not put others at risk. I know this is a pretty liberal/libertarian perspective but I honestly believe that current drug policy, built on the opposing ideas, has caused us more trouble than any kind of decriminalization ever would.

Sorry for derailing.

 

[DH410]

I agree with most of what you're saying here but I am not too sure about one thing. From all of the information I've seen on the subject the anabolic steroids seem to be illegal not due to some scientific justification of their harm but because people hate their use in competitive sports. Many fans feel like athletes who take roids cheat and should be punished. Also, it seems like people whose teenager kids got their hands on them and subsequently committed suicide are convinced that it was steroids they dd it (despite not having any direct proof). I am not saying that there are no dangers and people should inject anabolic steroids but I wouldn't be too quick to give our government any credit at all for protecting the public when it comes to drug laws in America. Lets not forget the designer steroid and other "supplements" industry eager to protect its profits.

My position is that a person (consenting adult who understand the risks) should be able to do whatever he/she wants with his body as long as it does not put others at risk. I know this is a pretty liberal/libertarian perspective but I honestly believe that current drug policy, built on the opposing ideas, has caused us more trouble than any kind of decriminalization ever would.

Sorry for derailing.

Guessing this was an off the cuff comment.

I may misunderstand the laws on this myself, but I believe the steroids in question are not "as illegal" as heroin or other illicit drugs. For example, testosterone can be used in in testosterone replacement therapy for geriatric populations. But I've wandered way out of my depth here, so perhaps some more knowledgable person can comment on this.

Even though my understanding of the human body remains at the mewling kitten stage (m1), I can still think of several real dangers to steroid use. Off the top of my head, liver damage from oral testosterone, kidney damage, sealing of the growth plates in children, hypogonadism, and everyones' favorite: virilization of women. Aside from the liver and kidney stuff, none of those are a surprise to anybody whose taken physio.. That's just what testosterone is supposed to do.

A google search would probably net you a dozen more problems. The irreversible (and highly damaging) nature of some of these side effects justifies making them illegal to me. I don't think a typical teenager or even necessarily a typical adult would really understand the risks of messing with such a finely tuned system, so informed risk seems a little implausible.

Edit: re-read your comment and realized I misinterpreted it. Thought you meant there was no evidence behind making them illegal. I still maintain that informed risk isn't plausible.

 

[SunsFun]

May


Guessing this was an off the cuff comment.

I may misunderstand the laws on this myself, but I believe the steroids in question are not "as illegal" as heroin or other illicit drugs. For example, testosterone can be used in in testosterone replacement therapy for geriatric populations. But I've wandered way out of my depth here, so perhaps some more knowledgable person can comment on this.

Even though my understanding of the human body remains at the mewling kitten stage (m1), I can still think of several real dangers to steroid use. Off the top of my head, liver damage from oral testosterone, kidney damage, sealing of the growth plates in children, hypogonadism, and everyones favorite: virilization of women. Aside from the liver and kidney stuff, none of those are a surprise to anybody whose taken physio.. That's just what testosterone is supposed to do.

A google search would probably net you a dozen more problems. The irreversible (and highly damaging) nature of some of these side effects justifies making them illegal to me. I don't think a typical teenager or even necessarily a typical adult would really understand the risks of messing with such a finely tuned system, so informed risk seems a little implausible.

I don't dismiss any of the risks you mentioned. But the logic you applied here: "no average adult will be able to fully comprehend the risks of steroid use to make an informed decision" can easily be applied to almost any substance that is currently legal like alcohol. Do you think an average person knows all the risk associated with smoking or drinking? Probably not. Do you think an average athlete understands all the risks involved in playing football? Should the government arbitrary decide what substance has risks associated with its use that are too complicated for an average person to make a sound judgement on?

 

[Law2Doc]

I agree with most of what you're saying here but I am not too sure about one thing. From all of the information I've seen on the subject the anabolic steroids seem to be illegal not due to some scientific justification of their harm but because people hate their use in competitive sports. Many fans feel like athletes who take roids cheat and should be punished. Also, it seems like people whose teenager kids got their hands on them and subsequently committed suicide are convinced that it was steroids they dd it (despite not having any direct proof). I am not saying that there are no dangers and people should inject anabolic steroids but I wouldn't be too quick to give our government any credit at all for protecting the public when it comes to drug laws in America. Lets not forget the designer steroid and other "supplements" industry eager to protect its profits.

My position is that a person (consenting adult who understand the risks) should be able to do whatever he/she wants with his body as long as it does not put others at risk. I know this is a pretty liberal/libertarian perspective but I honestly believe that current drug policy, built on the opposing ideas, has caused us more trouble than any kind of decriminalization ever would.

Sorry for derailing.

No, they were pulled off the OTC market for pretty significant health risks. Their "value" in competitive sports was what was popularizing them, and certainly what got them on the governments radar, but not the reason behind the legislation, which was endorsed by the medical community.

 

[Law2Doc]

Guessing this was an off the cuff comment.

I may misunderstand the laws on this myself, but I believe the steroids in question are not "as illegal" as heroin or other illicit drugs. For example, testosterone can be used in in testosterone replacement therapy for geriatric populations. But I've wandered way out of my depth here, so perhaps some more knowledgable person can comment on this.

Even though my understanding of the human body remains at the mewling kitten stage (m1), I can still think of several real dangers to steroid use. Off the top of my head, liver damage from oral testosterone, kidney damage, sealing of the growth plates in children, hypogonadism, and everyones' favorite: virilization of women. Aside from the liver and kidney stuff, none of those are a surprise to anybody whose taken physio.. That's just what testosterone is supposed to do.

A google search would probably net you a dozen more problems. The irreversible (and highly damaging) nature of some of these side effects justifies making them illegal to me. I don't think a typical teenager or even necessarily a typical adult would really understand the risks of messing with such a finely tuned system, so informed risk seems a little implausible.

Edit: re-read your comment and realized I misinterpreted it. Thought you meant there was no evidence behind making them illegal. I still maintain that informed risk isn't plausible.

There are many medications that are illegal to buy or sell without a prescription that aren't narcotics. And even narcotics are prescribed by doctors in appropriate circumstances. So I'm not sure the "not as illegal as heroin" argument is useful. Anabolic Steroids used to be freely available over the counter. In the wake of a number of significant health concerns due to side effects profiles of these actually very potent medications, they got pulled, and you now can only obtain and use them by prescription, and under the careful direction of a physician. Certain conditions involving significant loss of muscle mass (Esp AIDS) are examples where the benefits if these potent drugs are thought to outweigh the significant risks/side effect profile. Like any prescription drug that you are using without a prescription, you can get in hot water if it's found on your person or in your blood, even outside of the context of competitive sports (although again, no med school is likely going to test for these). It's the equivalent crime as the mom "borrowing" her kids Ritalin, or someone using someone else's sleeping meds, or buying Viagra over the Internet. That's illegal, even though we aren't talking about narcotics. I doubt the OP is going to have a strong defense if he gets caught and had to play the "well its not as illegal as heroin card".

 

[Isha2018]

I just remember the posters in middle school (back in the early 1990's) encouraging me to not do steroids due to the risk of 'small balls' and infertility. I would never do drugs, but those posters just reinforced my desire to keep my procreative future intact.

BTW, I have 4 children and no worries. I also thank Nancy Reagan and my parents for keeping me on the clean path.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't dismiss any of the risks you mentioned. But the logic you applied here: "no average adult will be able to fully comprehend the risks of steroid use to make an informed decision" can easily be applied to almost any substance that is currently legal like alcohol. Do you think an average person knows all the risk associated with smoking or drinking? Probably not. Do you think an average athlete understands all the risks involved in playing football? Should the government arbitrary decide what substance has risks associated with its use that are too complicated for an average person to make a sound judgement on?

Do alcohol and smoking have side effects and health risks? sure. Is it something that but for a strong corporate lobby and a lot of historical significance might be more restricted? Sure. Does that justify going ahead and using something that actually is illegal? No. There's just no logic here. You can't say alcohol is just as bad and it's not illegal so I should be able to use this that IS illegal. That's an argument to make alcohol illegal, not to make that which is illegal legal. That's like the guy who got caught cheating on a test trying to defend his actions by pointing out others who also cheated and got away with it -- it really doesn't make your actions more defensible.

 

[thefritz]

Anabolic steroids are actually an example of a drug that became illegal and got pulled off the market precisely for health risk reasons, so you are totally kidding yourself if you claim you "know what you are doing" without the requisite medical knowledge to make that statement. You are experimenting with something physicians have actually already declared unsafe, and touting it as "very safe". The fact that you made a statement downplaying the risks tells me you actually don't "know what you are doing".

Yep. Plus it's hilarious that you are concerned about getting busted on a drug test. People who are familiar with steroids will know if you are on the gear just by looking at you. There are a few students in my school like this. Sorry bro, you don't look like that by working out one hour every other day and spending most of your time in the library. It's really no secret AT ALL. Your build will give you away surely as a junkie's track marks. Girls might be fooled (well until they find out you have balls the size of marbles), but the rest of us know what's naturally possible and what's not. I'm actually surprised it took this long for this thread to turn like this.

I will give you credit for admitting it though. Plenty of guys think they can lie about it and people will believe them, which is harmful because young men become frustrated they can't look like that no matter how hard they try and turn to the juice themselves. Look up Kalimuscle. Yeah man, you don't get to be that big by just eating ****ing ramen noodles. And if you're not a professional athlete where you need the strength to make a living, what's the point? To impress girls? Come on...

 

[SunsFun]

Do alcohol and smoking have side effects and health risks? sure. Is it something that but for a strong corporate lobby and a lot of historical significance might be more restricted? Sure. Does that justify going ahead and using something that actually is illegal? No. There's just no logic here. You can't say alcohol is just as bad and it's not illegal so I should be able to use this that IS illegal. That's an argument to make alcohol illegal, not to make that which is illegal legal. That's like the guy who got caught cheating on a test trying to defend his actions by pointing out others who also cheated and got away with it -- it really doesn't make your actions more defensible.

See I am not building an argument to justify individual decision to participate in an illegal activity by comparing it to something legal. I am arguing that anabolic steroid use should be legal despite all of its health risks. Why? Because I believe that an adult should be able to make a decision about what to do with his body as long as the others are not put at risk. An argument the other poster was making along the lines of "average adult could never fully comprehend the true risks" to me is an insufficient justification for nanny-statism (hate this word) with government making arbitrary decisions that are most historical accidents (alcohol freely available) as to what an individual can or cannot do with his or her body.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

Gotta love when people try to advocate for something stupid they always bring up "alcohol and tobacco are dangerous too". Nobody seems to realize how asinine that argument is.

 

[SunsFun]

Gotta love when people try to advocate for something stupid they always bring up "alcohol and tobacco are dangerous too". Nobody seems to realize how asinine that argument is.

Not really asinine. Its just an easy illustration. I personally use it to show that people should be able to make choices even if those choices have an inherent health risks associated with them. We can use eating fast food, NASCAR racing, or playing football if alcohol and tobacco use are too unoriginal for you.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

Lol. Trying to promote one thing, by pointing out how bad something else is....

 

[SunsFun]

Lol. Trying to promote one thing, by pointing out how bad something else is....

Promote what exactly? Do you actually understand what I am arguing for?

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree with most of what you're saying here but I am not too sure about one thing. From all of the information I've seen on the subject the anabolic steroids seem to be illegal not due to some scientific justification of their harm but because people hate their use in competitive sports. Many fans feel like athletes who take roids cheat and should be punished. Also, it seems like people whose teenager kids got their hands on them and subsequently committed suicide are convinced that it was steroids they dd it (despite not having any direct proof). I am not saying that there are no dangers and people should inject anabolic steroids but I wouldn't be too quick to give our government any credit at all for protecting the public when it comes to drug laws in America. Lets not forget the designer steroid and other "supplements" industry eager to protect its profits.

My position is that a person (consenting adult who understand the risks) should be able to do whatever he/she wants with his body as long as it does not put others at risk. I know this is a pretty liberal/libertarian perspective but I honestly believe that current drug policy, built on the opposing ideas, has caused us more trouble than any kind of decriminalization ever would.

Sorry for derailing.

Drugs are approved to treat disease in the United States, not enhance performance. Regardless of safety profile, under the current approval process utilized by the FDA, steroids should not be legal. There are, however, health risks that are entirely dependent upon both your genetics and the cycle which you are using. It is a calculated risk at best. I believe people should be able to legally enhance their performance, personally, as quite frankly I see this as an area that could significantly expand human potential if legal. But that would require a change in the way we view pharmaceuticals that many people are simply uncomfortable with.

 

[Mad Jack]

Guessing this was an off the cuff comment.

I may misunderstand the laws on this myself, but I believe the steroids in question are not "as illegal" as heroin or other illicit drugs. For example, testosterone can be used in in testosterone replacement therapy for geriatric populations. But I've wandered way out of my depth here, so perhaps some more knowledgable person can comment on this.

Even though my understanding of the human body remains at the mewling kitten stage (m1), I can still think of several real dangers to steroid use. Off the top of my head, liver damage from oral testosterone, kidney damage, sealing of the growth plates in children, hypogonadism, and everyones' favorite: virilization of women. Aside from the liver and kidney stuff, none of those are a surprise to anybody whose taken physio.. That's just what testosterone is supposed to do.

A google search would probably net you a dozen more problems. The irreversible (and highly damaging) nature of some of these side effects justifies making them illegal to me. I don't think a typical teenager or even necessarily a typical adult would really understand the risks of messing with such a finely tuned system, so informed risk seems a little implausible.

Edit: re-read your comment and realized I misinterpreted it. Thought you meant there was no evidence behind making them illegal. I still maintain that informed risk isn't plausible.

The thing most people don't factor in is that it is not just testosterone that is used. HGH, insulin, tren, estrogen blockers, etc are used, each of which have their own side effects and risks. Just throwing that out there as a boost to your point.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yep. Plus it's hilarious that you are concerned about getting busted on a drug test. People who are familiar with steroids will know if you are on the gear just by looking at you. There are a few students in my school like this. Sorry bro, you don't look like that by working out one hour every other day and spending most of your time in the library. It's really no secret AT ALL. Your build will give you away surely as a junkie's track marks. Girls might be fooled (well until they find out you have balls the size of marbles), but the rest of us know what's naturally possible and what's not. I'm actually surprised it took this long for this thread to turn like this.

I will give you credit for admitting it though. Plenty of guys think they can lie about it and people will believe them, which is harmful because young men become frustrated they can't look like that no matter how hard they try and turn to the juice themselves. Look up Kalimuscle. Yeah man, you don't get to be that big by just eating ******* ramen noodles. And if you're not a professional athlete where you need the strength to make a living, what's the point? To impress girls? Come on...

The whole "you can tell a steroid user just by looking at them" thing is quite often wrong. Most people have no idea how large a person can get, nor how little work it actually takes to get there. At max, you really only need 5-8 hours of training a week to maintain a natural bodybuilding physique, and far less (3-5 hours) to maintain a decent build for powerlifting. What most people consider "big" outside of bodybuilding only takes 3 sets of 5 exercises a day, 5 days a week, to maintain, which is really a very modest time investment. If you are looking for a metric of the largest a person can get without roids, look at Jack LaLanne in his prime. If the person you are looking at is smaller than him, please, assume innocent until proven guilty. There are a lot of people that work hard to stay in shape only to be stigmatized as steroid users and meatheads by those that are lazier than they are that have no idea what a human body is capable of.

 

[DH410]

There are many medications that are illegal to buy or sell without a prescription that aren't narcotics. And even narcotics are prescribed by doctors in appropriate circumstances. So I'm not sure the "not as illegal as heroin" argument is useful. Anabolic Steroids used to be freely available over the counter. In the wake of a number of significant health concerns due to side effects profiles of these actually very potent medications, they got pulled, and you now can only obtain and use them by prescription, and under the careful direction of a physician. Certain conditions involving significant loss of muscle mass (Esp AIDS) are examples where the benefits if these potent drugs are thought to outweigh the significant risks/side effect profile. Like any prescription drug that you are using without a prescription, you can get in hot water if it's found on your person or in your blood, even outside of the context of competitive sports (although again, no med school is likely going to test for these). It's the equivalent crime as the mom "borrowing" her kids Ritalin, or someone using someone else's sleeping meds, or buying Viagra over the Internet. That's illegal, even though we aren't talking about narcotics. I doubt the OP is going to have a strong defense if he gets caught and had to play the "well its not as illegal as heroin card".

I make a lot of stupid statements, but "not as illegal as..." was exceptional even by my standards. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

To clarify, I did not mean that statement to serve as a defense of OP's actions in any way, I was responding to a previous post saying they should be legal. I was pointing out that to my limited understanding they were "more legal" than other drugs...
I am still a little confused on that point though, and have a few questions for you if you have time.
1. Aren't there different classifications of drugs by danger/restriction?
2.Don't physicians trying to prescribe "less legal" drugs face more scrutiny (Vicodin vs penicillin)?
3.Would a person carrying x amount of heroin into the US be violating more laws than a person carrying x amount of steroid?

Thanks for the help again

 

[DH410]

I don't dismiss any of the risks you mentioned. But the logic you applied here: "no average adult will be able to fully comprehend the risks of steroid use to make an informed decision" can easily be applied to almost any substance that is currently legal like alcohol. Do you think an average person knows all the risk associated with smoking or drinking? Probably not. Do you think an average athlete understands all the risks involved in playing football? Should the government arbitrary decide what substance has risks associated with its use that are too complicated for an average person to make a sound judgement on?

You don't need full knowledge of all consequences in order to make a decision. You need a working knowledge. Following the slippery slope you have set up here, I can't make any decision because I don't have full knowledge of the consequences. That is not my argument, it's your slippery slope.

Most people have some understanding of the dangers of alcohol and smoking; I knew before I took my first drink that if I tried to do 20 shots in an hour I would probably be dead. I would guess that most members of the public would know this as well. If they didn't, they could ask a friend, because drinking is popular and pervasive enough in our culture that many people know the consequences.

I do not believe that most members of our society are anywhere near as familiar with the consequences of steroid use. They are also less familiar with the dosages, cycles, and nature of steroid compounds. As such, I do not believe most people have the necessary knowledge to make informed choices to use steroids.

In addition, although smoking and alcohol may cause complex conditions, it seems to me that it would be more difficult to develop a working knowledge anabolic steroids than alcohol/smoking. The metabolism, regulation, and effects of various steroids seem far more complex to me.

 

[SunsFun]

You don't need full knowledge of all consequences in order to make a decision. You need a working knowledge. Following the slippery slope you have set up here, I can't make any decision because I don't have full knowledge of the consequences. That is not my argument, it's your slippery slope.

Most people have some understanding of the dangers of alcohol and smoking; I knew before I took my first drink that if I tried to do 20 shots in an hour I would probably be dead. I would guess that most members of the public would know this as well. If they didn't, they could ask a friend, because drinking is popular and pervasive enough in our culture that many people know the consequences.

I do not believe that most members of our society are anywhere near as familiar with the consequences of steroid use. They are also less familiar with the dosages, cycles, and nature of steroid compounds. As such, I do not believe most people have the necessary knowledge to make informed choices to use steroids.

In addition, although smoking and alcohol may cause complex conditions, it seems to me that it would be more difficult to develop a working knowledge anabolic steroids than alcohol/smoking. The metabolism, regulation, and effects of various steroids seem far more complex to me.

How do you know people have enough information to make what we would consider informed decision on tobacco or alcohol the first time they try? This is extremely bold assumption that can easily be false for most people. And probably is to be honest. You set yourself up for a slippery slope here, I am just pointing out a logical and moral inconsistency of arguing that a rational adult can be allowed to do one thing that is dangerous without having to know anything about how dangerous it is yet some beauracrat can arbitrarily tell that same individual cannot use another substance because there is presumably not enough common knowledge about it. Does this even make sense? You're either for allowing people to arrive at their own conclusions or you're for government to make a determination for them.

 

[thefritz]

The whole "you can tell a steroid user just by looking at them" thing is quite often wrong. Most people have no idea how large a person can get, nor how little work it actually takes to get there. At max, you really only need 5-8 hours of training a week to maintain a natural bodybuilding physique, and far less (3-5 hours) to maintain a decent build for powerlifting. What most people consider "big" outside of bodybuilding only takes 3 sets of 5 exercises a day, 5 days a week, to maintain, which is really a very modest time investment. If you are looking for a metric of the largest a person can get without roids, look at Jack LaLanne in his prime. If the person you are looking at is smaller than him, please, assume innocent until proven guilty. There are a lot of people that work hard to stay in shape only to be stigmatized as steroid users and meatheads by those that are lazier than they are that have no idea what a human body is capable of.

I've been lifting for strength (not bodybuilding) for over a decade. People who lift can spot a juicer. It's not just total mass, it's more subtle things as well. For those who know, it's obvious. There is the "look" you just don't get any other way. I know this is subjective, but really if you're juicing it's hard to hide it. Your back and lats will explode quickly and you get disproportionally huge growth and definition in your upper body while maintaining a trim waistline. It's an attractive look and why so many people do it. You can get rapid muscle development simply by doing steroids and not even lifting, beyond what is possible in a similar time frame by working out naturally. Simply by doing nothing but juicing. This is not even mentioning the other dead giveways including the estrogen side effects along with obvious personality changes. It's not even close. Steroid use is obvious to anyone who knows anything about it.

Yes, you can be "big" both by using steriods and working out naturally. But the look of each is drastically different. Unfortunately, so many people use the steriod-induced look (the kind we see on men's fitness magazine covers and bodybuilding competitions) as their goal when they start, and when it becomes obvious they can't obtain this they get some gear. Whereas if they had the natural look as their goal, they could have made realistic progress. You can google "steroid look vs. natural look" for myriad examples. It's night and day. Somebody who is huge and ripped in med school but is only able to hit the gym once or twice a week and maintaining that or getting bigger is juicing. Period.

 

[Law2Doc]

I make a lot of stupid statements, but "not as illegal as..." was exceptional even by my standards. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

To clarify, I did not mean that statement to serve as a defense of OP's actions in any way, I was responding to a previous post saying they should be legal. I was pointing out that to my limited understanding they were "more legal" than other drugs...
I am still a little confused on that point though, and have a few questions for you if you have time.
1. Aren't there different classifications of drugs by danger/restriction?
2.Don't physicians trying to prescribe "less legal" drugs face more scrutiny (Vicodin vs penicillin)?
3.Would a person carrying x amount of heroin into the US be violating more laws than a person carrying x amount of steroid?

Thanks for the help again

Sure, there are different criminal laws that apply to narcotics as compared to prescription drugs. But when you get denied a medical license do you really care which statute you violated to lose it? For someone on this career path the real risk isn't the potential for jail time.

 

[Mad Jack]

I've been lifting for strength (not bodybuilding) for over a decade. People who lift can spot a juicer. It's not just total mass, it's more subtle things as well. For those who know, it's obvious. There is the "look" you just don't get any other way. I know this is subjective, but really if you're juicing it's hard to hide it. Your back and lats will explode quickly and you get disproportionally huge growth and definition in your upper body while maintaining a trim waistline. It's an attractive look and why so many people do it. You can get rapid muscle development simply by doing steroids and not even lifting, beyond what is possible in a similar time frame by working out naturally. Simply by doing nothing but juicing. This is not even mentioning the other dead giveways including the estrogen side effects along with obvious personality changes. It's not even close. Steroid use is obvious to anyone who knows anything about it.

Yes, you can be "big" both by using steriods and working out naturally. But the look of each is drastically different. Unfortunately, so many people use the steriod-induced look (the kind we see on men's fitness magazine covers and bodybuilding competitions) as their goal when they start, and when it becomes obvious they can't obtain this they get some gear. Whereas if they had the natural look as their goal, they could have made realistic progress. You can google "steroid look vs. natural look" for myriad examples. It's night and day. Somebody who is huge and ripped in med school but is only able to hit the gym once or twice a week and maintaining that or getting bigger is juicing. Period.

I'm not saying all people can't tell what roid use looks like. I'm saying that most people can't and they lump everyone that is on the larger side into the steroid camp. I'm telling those people to chill out and hold on the judgement.

 

[DH410]

How do you know people have enough information to make what we would consider informed decision on tobacco or alcohol the first time they try?

I do not. However, there is a substantial base population using the drugs in question. According to the substance abuse and mental health services admin., ~40% of young adults binge drink. Are those people the best example/source of information for new users? Probably not, but at least there is a large portion of the population to go to with questions.

This is extremely bold assumption that can easily be false for most people. And probably is to be honest.

It probably is false for some people, but with a large % of the population using it, I'd argue there is a better chance that they are informed.

You set yourself up for a slippery slope here. I am just pointing out a logical and moral inconsistency. Arguing a rational adult can be allowed to do one dangerous thing, without having to know anything about how dangerous it is, yet some bureaucrat can arbitrarily tell this individual he/she cannot use another substance because there is presumably not enough common knowledge about it. Does this even make sense?

I partially fixed the run on sentence here because it bothered me. I'm guilty of these sometimes, so I won't judge.
Whether or not a substance is dangerous enough to be illegal is ultimately somewhat subjective. I am content with my opinion that steroids are correctly kept off the market because of significant risks and questionable benefits. So yes, to me it makes sense.

You're either for allowing people to arrive at their own conclusions or you're for government to make a determination for them.
This is what you are advocating for. I am advocating for a mix.

I responded to some of your points above. I am tired, and probably should have ignored this and gone to bed. So I apologize for the disjointed nature of my response.

This has reminded me never to take a position on here, however bland and benign that position might be. Back to quietly lurking.