Anabolic steroids generally improve the level of athletic performance. Improved performance is, by most accounts, good for sport. MLB umpire Tim McClelland recently questioned how one could fault an athlete for doing something that makes him a better player. Sidney Gendin, professor of philosophy of law at Eastern Michigan University, has even suggested that we should only ban those athletes who refuse to use steroids.
Janean Marti argues in an editorial that professional athletes have an obligation to their fans to use steroids to improve their performance. After all, how else can an athlete like Alex Rodriguez plausibly begin to justify his $275 million baseball contract to his employers and/or to his fans? Furthermore, Marti highlights the utter hypocrisy of society’s condemnation of the unacceptable dangers of steroids and criticism of the wrong message it sends to young people Read more
The British celebrity tabloid “News of the World” published a photograph of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps hitting a bong accompanied by an article suggesting he was an experienced cannabis user. Recreational marijuana use is a banned “in-competition” substance unlike anabolic steroids. Cannabis use is permitted by the IOC and WADA Anti-Doping Code outside of competition in spite of its illegal status in the United States. Michael Phelps quickly issued a public statement apologizing for his behavior which many accepted as an admission of his cannabis use (”Phelps Apologizes for Marijuana Pipe Photo,” February 1).
“I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I’m 23 years old and despite the successes I’ve had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.”
Fortunately, the general public rejected the tabloid’s attempt to sensationalize Phelps’ pot use as an unforgiveable moral failure. The changing public attitudes towards marijuana use have enabled public figures to dismiss incidents of recreational illicit drug use as “youthful indiscretions.” The acceptance of marijuana use by Michael Phelps regrettably comes at the expense of anabolic steroids.
The main difference between anabolic steroids and marijuana with respect to athletes involves the drug’s effects on athletic performance. Steroids help performance; pot hurts performance. Ironically, a substance that allow an athlete to work harder and perform better is EVIL; a substance that diminishes an athlete’s ability to work hard and perform is GOOD. The goal-directed motivations of steroid users are BAD. Read more
Anabolic-androgenic steroids are probably the least dangerous category of drugs scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) even though the medical side effects are irrelevant to the scheduling criteria of the CSA. According to the American Medical Association, they do not meet the traditional Control Substances Act criteria for scheduling. Even as the “bastard child of controlled substances,” there has been little advocacy for the reform of anabolic steroid laws.
Anabolic steroids are currently illegal for non-medical purposes such as performance enhancement or cosmetic enhancement. If you think that anabolic steroids should be legal for the purposes in adults who do not compete in sports subject to a doping code prohibiting performance enhancing drugs, you may want to consider strategies discussed by other drug law reformers.
According to Alex Coolman of the Drug Law Blog, how you frame the legalization argument is crucial:
But I agree that it’s time to move away from the argument that “we should legalize drugs because, hey, they aren’t that harmful.”
My take on the “right” approach tends to be more oriented around civil rights and the costs of using prisons as tools of social control.
Just because you believe the dangers of anabolic steroids have been exaggerated, manufactured, or overstated doesn’t make for an effective anabolic steroid legalization strategy.
Pete Guither has some advice for drug reformers at Drug War Rant. He focuses on legalization efforts for marijuana, but replace pot with steroids and the advice is equally useful.
What we need to do is show the people that legalization is safer than prohibition.
We need to convince people that marijuana prohibition is endangering their children, robbing their checkbooks, hurting their property values and causing moral decay. We need them to understand that legalizing pot will make their streets safer and eliminate poverty.
You get the idea. Self-interest.
Now that’s not so critical to you or I. We understand what’s at stake. But we forget that the rest of the population doesn’t have our knowledge. We have to shake them out of their drug policy illiteracy.
Wrong approach:
Pot isn’t very harmful. We can protect against drugged drivers. It’s not a proper law. We should legalize marijuana.
Right approach:
Pot prohibition is causing criminals to prey on your children. We must legalize and regulate it NOW to cut back on damage to our cities and our families.
The only way to motivate people enough so that they’ll go past what the government tells them they should think is to make it personal.
The government is spending a lot of money and resources in the war on steroids (as part of the overall war on drugs). What is the cost-benefit of incarcerating steroid users? Wouldn’t legalizing steroids and regulating them be a better alternative?
