Harmattan wrote:Running studies is not prohibited, unless it has been determined that the product is unsafe at such high doses. So either the doses have been proven to be too dangerous, either no one is willing to spend the lot of money required to run a five years study with thousands of guinea pigs (which is the norm in pharmaceutical studies).
And it's not that conventional drugs under conventional usage are safe: it's just that their pros are greater than their cons when the pros involve saving someone's life.
Drugs may be illegal to merchandise before being proven safe, but not illegal to consume in general. PEDs were arbitrarily deemed too dangerous. So, you can't give it to athletes, but it's too dangerous to study. That makes no sense, but it's the situation we're in.
Not professional sportsmen. They take drugs so that they can outperform those who do not use them. Or to perform equally with those who take them.
It's not an egotistical purpose, a desire to become greater, it is a desire to win. And legalizing those drugs pretty ruin the purpose, those PED would just become a damaging constrain.
Outperform, generally because anabolic steroids - for example - allow for quicker muscle recovery, which allows the user to exert extra efforts. Believe me, it isn't as if these guys take drugs so they can sit on their ass.
HGH, I suppose (just given the name), gives you bonus results for the stock effort you produce.
Either way, pros don't take drugs to in any way diminish the work load. If anything, it is the opposite case.
And even if it was simply to outperform, why are we singling out these specific drugs as not acceptable, without any concrete evidence to mount an argument against them in the first place?
Econ L/R: 2.12 Soc Lib/Aut: -0.56
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself. - Luke 10:27