The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) thanked governments around the world for joining them in their efforts to internationalize steroid law around the world during a ceremony to celebrate the ratification of the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport 2005 by over 100 countries.
WADA has explicitly stated their desire for all national governments to criminalize the use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs as defined in the WADA code. WADA’s politically-correct and moralistic agenda, like U.S. steroid law enforcement policy, seeks to pressure and coerce other governments to think alike and conform to accept its policy as the defacto international anti-steroid policy (”WADA praises governments for anti-doping stance,” November 12).
WADA’s David Howman said Wednesday that 102 countries have ratified the UNESCO Convention on Doping in Sport since it came into force nearly two years ago. It means anti-doping measures become part of national law in the countries that have ratified the agreement.
[...]
“We’re not there yet, we still have a long way to go. (Doping) is too easy in many countries because there are not strong enough laws,” Howman said. “Let’s enhance the fight through legislation.”
Steroid policy experts have been critical of the internationalization of steroid law for its highly politicized and moralistic agenda. Philip Sweitzer analyzes the trend of political correctness in the current debate on steroid law policy that has troubling consequences for countries around the world Read more
Following the revelation of an international doping scandal centered in Austria, the Austrian government has announced legislation that will criminalize mere possession of anabolic steroid and/or other performance enhancing drugs. Previously, there was no punishment for possession of steroids (”Austria to tighten anti-doping law,” April 18).
Legislation to tighten Austria’s anti-doping laws by criminalising possession of performance-enhancing substances are to be unveiled this summer, the government announced on Friday.
According to proposals to be unveiled in early July, it will be a criminal offence to be found in possession of doping substances above a certain quantity, said Roland Achatz, spokesperson for sports secretary Reinhold Lopatka.
It also appears that Greece is prepared to criminalize steroid possession as well as a major steroid scandal involving the Greek Weightlifting Team unfolds (”Greece to target doping cheats,” April 19).
Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis pledged yesterday to tighten the country’s anti-doping laws in a bid to stamp out illegal substance abuse among athletes.
”A special committee was formed… to consider more stringent administrative and criminal sanctions against those who use, provide and market banned substances,” Karamanlis told Parliament.
The “internationalization of steroid law” predicted by Philip Sweitzer is becoming a reality.
The internationalized, fascistic nature of current steroid law enforcement policy thus emerges. Hegemony is its stated goal, that U.S. policy must be tantamount to international policy: all nations must conform to the legal standard of the United States. We must all think alike… The “internationalization” of steroid law, however, is also troubling for its politicization and heavy-handed reliance on dishonest notions of morality, cheating, and “protecting our children,” rather than science…
A full analysis of the internationalization of steroid law by Sweitzer can be found in “AAS Across the Atlantic: The “Americanization” and Politicization of International Steroid Law“.
Researchers have recently discovered that the anabolic-androgenic steroid testosterone may be responsible for “irrational exuberance” that leads to the stock market bubbles that precipitate market crashes (”Male sex hormone may affect stock trades,” April 14).
The hormone that drives male aggression and sexual interest also seems able to boost short term success at finance. But what seems to start out well can turn bad, with elevated testosterone levels over several days possibly leading to irrational risk-taking, according to researchers at the University of Cambridge in England.
Researchers issued recommendations that individuals with low testosterone levels should manage financial markets.
“If people want to get practical, it would be good for both banks and the financial system as a whole if we had more women and older men in the markets,” said John M. Coates, lead author of a study appearing in this week’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Such a change would produce a much more stable financial system, said Coates, a research fellow in the university’s department of physiology, development and neuroscience.
Another anabolic steroids (testosterone) at the root of society’s problems…
(Hat tip to Philip Sweitzer for the story.)
The Phoenix Police Department has experienced its fair share of problems with the use of anabolic steroids by its officers over the past couple of years. An investigation by the local Phoenix CBS affiliate and KPHO.com exposed widespread use of steroids in the Phoenix PD. A subsequent federal investigation by the DEA and internal probe by Phoenix P.D. confirmed the same thing (”Federal steroid probe widens: 5 investigates how Phoenix police are responding,” July 23, 2007).
As a result, the State of Arizona has been under a greater deal of political pressure to do something about the “problem.” Today, we learned that the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board has agreed upon a course of action to eliminate steroid use by Arizona police officers (”State acts on ending officer juicing: Doctor works with State board on new rules,” March 21).
Arizona could soon be the first state in the country to forbid the use of illegal anabolic steroids in their police officers.
The introduction to the article caught me by surprise. After all, the illegal use of anabolic steroids is already a felony under federal law therefore illegal in ALL states (police officers included). The non-medical use of anabolic steroids is already prohibited by federal law and most state laws; most police departments around the country have explicit policies forbidding illegal steroid use by its officers as well. So, how could Arizona be the first state to ban illegal steroid use by police officers?
After reading the article carefully, it appears the new rules really don’t do anything to further enforce existing rules banning the illegal use of anabolic steroids. Instead, they seek to restrict the “medical use” of anabolic steroids by the officers under its authority.
The new rules give the State the authority to intervene in the doctor-patient relationships of police officers and define the acceptable medical treatment should an officer’s physician prescribe anabolic steroids.
-
Any officer using injectable anabolic steroids must notify their commander within 72 hours.
-
They must supply a doctor’s prescription within a week.
-
The prescription can’t be any stronger than the FDA approved dose of 300 mg per two weeks.
The rules are allegedly needed because some physicians illegally prescribe steroids to police officers. If the steroids are illegally prescribed, why aren’t the physicians targeted? Why are the medical records of officers invaded instead? Why are local police departments given authority to dictate acceptable medical treatment for its officers?
Why does the State of Arizona feel an invasion of medical privacy is justified? Apparently, anabolic steroids become unacceptable the moment an officer starts lifting weights or bodybuilding or getting bigger!
“If somebody needs steroids where they have a disease or they can’t produce testosterone, they’re OK but if someone’s using it to bodybuild or get bigger, they’re not under the protection of the law,” Gutman said.
If the primary concern is hyper-muscular officers or bodybuilding, then perhaps a more effective policy would be to enforce maximum body mass index (BMI) as a condition of employment? Or ban officers from working out?! Of course, that is silly.
“Arizona will be the first state in the nation to protect its police officers from the ill effects of long-term steroids use and protect the public from somebody who has a steroids rage,” Gutman said.
It seems a little hypocritical for state officials to point to protecting the “health” of officers when they send officers out on the street to face violent offenders where they put their life at risk everyday. It seems to me that the best way to protect the short-term and long-term “health” of officers would be to provide them with every possible advantage over their opponents (i.e. dangerous criminals).
That really leaves protecting the public from so-called steroid “roid rage” as the primary reason that use of anabolic steroids by law enforcement is a major concern. Roid rage and the psychological effects of anabolic steroids have been covered extensively by true scientific researchers like Jack Darkes, PhD, a substance abuse expert at the University of South Florida.
Attorney Philip Sweitzer also has an excellent analysis of the issue of anabolic steroids in law enforcement (”Drug Law Enforcement in Crisis: Cops on Steroids“). I highly recommend it.
In closing, enjoy this video commentary below, courtesy of Steroid.com (”Cops and Steroids – Who Cares?”)
Recently, I discussed a potential strategy for the reformation of steroid laws that has been used by drug law reformers seeking to legalizing other scheduled drugs like marijuana. In sum, instead of arguing that steroids are relatively benign drugs whose side effects have been grossly exaggerated, efforts towards reform should focus on arguing that “legalization is safer than prohibition.”
I received an email from attorney Philip Sweitzer, Esq. who strongly disagreed with this approach:
The problem with this approach is that it fails to take into account the widely disparate constitutional differences between steroids and hallucinogens/opiates, making them all part of the same “legalization” regime. Steroids should be legalized, specifically because their profile for addictive abuse is ZERO. This argument plays right into the hands of the prohibitionists, by making one issue (steroids) the same as the other (addictive opiates and non-addictive hallucinogens.) We have to get out of the “one drug is the same as any other drug” mindset, in developing public policy on drugs.
He agrees that prohibition isn’t effective, but we should never forget that anabolic steroids do not meet the traditional Control Substances Act criteria for scheduling and should never be lumped together with other Schedule III substances.
I agree with the “prohibition just doesn’t work anyway,” idea and the concept that incarceration as a tool of prohibition is a waste of tax payer money. But framing the argument around other Schedule III drugs I think buys into the notion that AAS belong there – AAS need to be OFF Schedule III.
I think he is right. While prohibition may represent bad public policy and legalization/regulation would be a better alternative, the circumstances surrounding the scheduling of anabolic-androgenic steroids are unique and deserve to be evaluated independently.
Steroid law reformers should primarily focus on repealing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act and removing them from the list of controlled substances. Regardless of feelings regarding the Controlled Substances Act and prohibition, anabolic steroids do not belong there. We should not cede this point.
