bigZ241
05-02-2009, 12:19 PM
So I've been doing my reading, and I thought it time to 'stick it to the man.' I sent an e-mail off to the Office of Controlled Substances (OCS from here on out). Keep in mind, prior to the e-mails i'm going to show you I had to send about half a dozen e-mails simply asking for some medical information that is enough to be grounds for the current steroid ban. I wanted some studies that were used to make the decision to ban. I needed to see what I had to argue against. Here's what's been said back and forth.
Dear ****:
I am writing in response to your follow-up emails of November 5th and 13th,
further to our email of November 5, 2008 requesting information regarding
the regulation of anabolic steroids.
In your follow-up emails, you have repeatedly asked for scientific evidence
of the risks associated with anabolic steroid use. The best place for you
to obtain this kind of information is your public library, as they will be
able to help you find reference, e.g., books, journal articles, research
reports dealing with this subject.
Two examples of such papers can be found at the following links:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/researchreports/steroids/anabolicsteroids2.html
and
http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol15N4/study.html
Yours sincerely,
The Office of Controlled Substances
Firstly, if you follow those links it's a link to the same NIDA site, a site on drug abuse... I'm sure things will be unbiased here... Glad they have so much data on steroids that they can't give even 2 sources. But that's fine, I realize this is probably a daily thing for them, why give me a ton of attention. But here's my response
Hi Again,
So I have done more reading, as if i hadn't already, and I have some info for you to look at that I would like your thoughts on.
First off let me say that the two links you gave me were the farthest thing from unbiased, moreover the study that you gave me in the second link was about psychiatric effects. You have nothing on health effects? There is no way that this study alone is grounds for a ban. Working security at a dance club I see 'prominant' aggression that I would link to nothing other than over intoxication from alcohol. But alcohol is not banned?
And this is without pointing out that in the study the only "data" that's presented in the graphs is 3 people's psychiatric 'effects' from the drugs. When you read the rest of the study you see that of 50 people those 2 shown in the graphs were the OLNY subjects who had 'prominent' symptoms, 6 moderate, and 42 with 'minimal.' To me it sounds like %4 of users have 'prominent' effects. What percent of alcoholics have something more severe, like say dead brain cells? What percent of people get aggressive when heavily intoxicated? Don't take it from me that it's a larger number, here's a study for you:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-63788382.html
or
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/SupportingResearch/Journal/giancola.aspx
from the second link: "4-6% reported being intoxicated when apprehended by police"
to be taken in by the police? I think you can agree that it would take something fairly 'prominent' to be arrested. So %4-6 for alcohol versus a %4 for steroids? Yet Alcohol is legal so long as I have my ID with me? Why??? Seems by the office of controlled substances standards alcohol should be banned too, seeing as it has the same numbers as steroids...
Now lets talk about real health risks, brain damage, hospitalization, death, permanent organ failure. Lets compare alcohol (Legal) to Steroids (Banned), seems fair right?
The largest problem I had was that steroids on a list of 200 most common reasons for ER visits fell at position 142. Which is after multivitamin over dose (multivitamins are legal too). So finding a study on only steroids being the cause of hospitalization was hard. I did find two studies about pharmaceuticals in general, and alcohol:
pharmaceuticals: http://www.naturalnews.com/023502.html
alcohol: http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/cost/a/bljama040309.htm
%12 ER visits for all pharmaceuticals and just just under %8 for alcohol alone. And even if you assume high and say %50 of the pharmaceutical emergencies are anabolics, anabolics are STILL LOWER! But still banned.
How about deaths associated with alcohol VS. anabolics. You only need to go onto MADD's website and find all the data you want for deaths both from alcohol poisoning, and accidents related to drinking (over 400 deaths in the year 2000 alone). Now for anabolics, since their discovery in the 30s, how many deaths WORLD WIDE have been definitively linked to steroids? ZERO, none, nada! You find me one definitive case and I will never e-mail you again, hows that for a bold statement?
I'll ask you to follow one more link then I'm done with this e-mail, I promise. Watch the HBO special put on by RealSports, it's getting old now, but certainly newer than the studies on anabolics. So the research is on recently published journals.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=HBO%20steroid&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#
google video hosts that one, I didn't want to send you to some biased website to read a whole forum's worth of "god the government is so stupid" before finding the link.
Also, and I know this is asking a LOT. But watch the documentary 'Bigger, Stronger, Faster'. It's more in depth than the 14minute RealSport clip, but worth the watch!
I hope now you feel like I can do my research and that I still want a real reason as to why alcohol is legal with only an ID, but anabolics are banned. Something solid... Anything solid.
Thank you for your time, I do appreciate actually being talked to. I usually just get ignored on this topic.
Regards
-****
Yeah I was getting hot and bothered by the end. Who of you haven't done the same when talking about this. Probably my big mistake. Also, I sent this e-mail twice. The dates are said in the next e-mail, and I got the response this week. Looking at the dates, it's like no one wanted to talk to me or something! But here's the response I got!
Dear ****:
We are writing in response to your emails of November 20, 2008 and January
3, 2009 regarding the regulation of anabolic steroids. We regret the delay
in issuing this response.
We regret that you do not think that the papers to which we referred you
are valid, as independent of your personal opinion as to their conclusions,
the information set out in each has been through a rigorous process of peer
review.
As there is no further need for communication on our part, we have now
closed your file.
Yours sincerely,
The Office of Controlled Substances
Look! One more person in the world who wants nothing to do with me. I sent one more e-mail after this today. I just said I thought the data in the study was fine data, but presented horribly biased. I also asked for a method to talk to someone in person. We'll see what happens.
NOTE: IF this post is somehow no good for this forum, just delete it. I just needed to get it out, really i don't care if anyone reads it. Still feels good to know it's out there! Also, if it should be somewhere else, move this thing, please! Lastly, sorry for a huge post!
Dear ****:
I am writing in response to your follow-up emails of November 5th and 13th,
further to our email of November 5, 2008 requesting information regarding
the regulation of anabolic steroids.
In your follow-up emails, you have repeatedly asked for scientific evidence
of the risks associated with anabolic steroid use. The best place for you
to obtain this kind of information is your public library, as they will be
able to help you find reference, e.g., books, journal articles, research
reports dealing with this subject.
Two examples of such papers can be found at the following links:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/researchreports/steroids/anabolicsteroids2.html
and
http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol15N4/study.html
Yours sincerely,
The Office of Controlled Substances
Firstly, if you follow those links it's a link to the same NIDA site, a site on drug abuse... I'm sure things will be unbiased here... Glad they have so much data on steroids that they can't give even 2 sources. But that's fine, I realize this is probably a daily thing for them, why give me a ton of attention. But here's my response
Hi Again,
So I have done more reading, as if i hadn't already, and I have some info for you to look at that I would like your thoughts on.
First off let me say that the two links you gave me were the farthest thing from unbiased, moreover the study that you gave me in the second link was about psychiatric effects. You have nothing on health effects? There is no way that this study alone is grounds for a ban. Working security at a dance club I see 'prominant' aggression that I would link to nothing other than over intoxication from alcohol. But alcohol is not banned?
And this is without pointing out that in the study the only "data" that's presented in the graphs is 3 people's psychiatric 'effects' from the drugs. When you read the rest of the study you see that of 50 people those 2 shown in the graphs were the OLNY subjects who had 'prominent' symptoms, 6 moderate, and 42 with 'minimal.' To me it sounds like %4 of users have 'prominent' effects. What percent of alcoholics have something more severe, like say dead brain cells? What percent of people get aggressive when heavily intoxicated? Don't take it from me that it's a larger number, here's a study for you:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-63788382.html
or
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/SupportingResearch/Journal/giancola.aspx
from the second link: "4-6% reported being intoxicated when apprehended by police"
to be taken in by the police? I think you can agree that it would take something fairly 'prominent' to be arrested. So %4-6 for alcohol versus a %4 for steroids? Yet Alcohol is legal so long as I have my ID with me? Why??? Seems by the office of controlled substances standards alcohol should be banned too, seeing as it has the same numbers as steroids...
Now lets talk about real health risks, brain damage, hospitalization, death, permanent organ failure. Lets compare alcohol (Legal) to Steroids (Banned), seems fair right?
The largest problem I had was that steroids on a list of 200 most common reasons for ER visits fell at position 142. Which is after multivitamin over dose (multivitamins are legal too). So finding a study on only steroids being the cause of hospitalization was hard. I did find two studies about pharmaceuticals in general, and alcohol:
pharmaceuticals: http://www.naturalnews.com/023502.html
alcohol: http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/cost/a/bljama040309.htm
%12 ER visits for all pharmaceuticals and just just under %8 for alcohol alone. And even if you assume high and say %50 of the pharmaceutical emergencies are anabolics, anabolics are STILL LOWER! But still banned.
How about deaths associated with alcohol VS. anabolics. You only need to go onto MADD's website and find all the data you want for deaths both from alcohol poisoning, and accidents related to drinking (over 400 deaths in the year 2000 alone). Now for anabolics, since their discovery in the 30s, how many deaths WORLD WIDE have been definitively linked to steroids? ZERO, none, nada! You find me one definitive case and I will never e-mail you again, hows that for a bold statement?
I'll ask you to follow one more link then I'm done with this e-mail, I promise. Watch the HBO special put on by RealSports, it's getting old now, but certainly newer than the studies on anabolics. So the research is on recently published journals.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=HBO%20steroid&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#
google video hosts that one, I didn't want to send you to some biased website to read a whole forum's worth of "god the government is so stupid" before finding the link.
Also, and I know this is asking a LOT. But watch the documentary 'Bigger, Stronger, Faster'. It's more in depth than the 14minute RealSport clip, but worth the watch!
I hope now you feel like I can do my research and that I still want a real reason as to why alcohol is legal with only an ID, but anabolics are banned. Something solid... Anything solid.
Thank you for your time, I do appreciate actually being talked to. I usually just get ignored on this topic.
Regards
-****
Yeah I was getting hot and bothered by the end. Who of you haven't done the same when talking about this. Probably my big mistake. Also, I sent this e-mail twice. The dates are said in the next e-mail, and I got the response this week. Looking at the dates, it's like no one wanted to talk to me or something! But here's the response I got!
Dear ****:
We are writing in response to your emails of November 20, 2008 and January
3, 2009 regarding the regulation of anabolic steroids. We regret the delay
in issuing this response.
We regret that you do not think that the papers to which we referred you
are valid, as independent of your personal opinion as to their conclusions,
the information set out in each has been through a rigorous process of peer
review.
As there is no further need for communication on our part, we have now
closed your file.
Yours sincerely,
The Office of Controlled Substances
Look! One more person in the world who wants nothing to do with me. I sent one more e-mail after this today. I just said I thought the data in the study was fine data, but presented horribly biased. I also asked for a method to talk to someone in person. We'll see what happens.
NOTE: IF this post is somehow no good for this forum, just delete it. I just needed to get it out, really i don't care if anyone reads it. Still feels good to know it's out there! Also, if it should be somewhere else, move this thing, please! Lastly, sorry for a huge post!