Legalization

[pprtgr]

With all the talk about the possible legalization of marijuana looming in California, I was just curious about the best legal arguments for challenging the legality of steroid prohibition. I came across an article on the web about Guy Ducasse, a bodybuilder on trial in Oklahoma.

"Guy Ducasse's attorney, public defender Stephen Greubel, skillfully used testimony by the prosecution's star witness to lay the groundwork for requesting a reduced sentence of zero months for his client. Greubel argued that the use of anabolic steroids was expected and required to compete as a professional bodybuilder in non-steroid tested competitions. Therefore, Ducasse's personal use of steroids and his distribution of steroids to other bodybuilders did NOT result in "the corruption of sports or athletes."

From what I understand, steroid prohibition is based off of that premise, that steroids corrupt sports.... How long do you think it will take for us to get a "Rosa Parks", someone who refuses to obey an unjust law and who openly calls the laws out as immoral, rather than sheepishly obey them like all the baseball players who have been browbeaten into submission. Technically, the government probably does have the authority to regulate and prohibit distribution....but ultimately do they have the "divine" moral authority? Does it really matter if steroids are a part of sports, etc.... Why is that immoral?

[ROCKETW19]

With all the talk about the possible legalization of marijuana looming in California, I was just curious about the best legal arguments for challenging the legality of steroid prohibition. I came across an article on the web about Guy Ducasse, a bodybuilder on trial in Oklahoma.

"Guy Ducasse's attorney, public defender Stephen Greubel, skillfully used testimony by the prosecution's star witness to lay the groundwork for requesting a reduced sentence of zero months for his client. Greubel argued that the use of anabolic steroids was expected and required to compete as a professional bodybuilder in non-steroid tested competitions. Therefore, Ducasse's personal use of steroids and his distribution of steroids to other bodybuilders did NOT result in "the corruption of sports or athletes."

From what I understand, steroid prohibition is based off of that premise, that steroids corrupt sports.... How long do you think it will take for us to get a "Rosa Parks", someone who refuses to obey an unjust law and who openly calls the laws out as immoral, rather than sheepishly obey them like all the baseball players who have been browbeaten into submission. Technically, the government probably does have the authority to regulate and prohibit distribution....but ultimately do they have the "divine" moral authority? Does it really matter if steroids are a part of sports, etc.... Why is that immoral?

No one knows why they made it a class 3 drug the DEA even didnt know why. but it is and probably always will be. It has nothing to do with morals it is illeagle just like cocain or what ever

[pprtgr]

No one knows why they made it a class 3 drug the DEA even didnt know why. but it is and probably always will be. It has nothing to do with morals it is illeagle just like cocain or what ever

I was reading an article on the internet, on a different site. This guy Rick Collings wrote a book "Legal Muscle:Anabolics in America". I haven't read the book. In the article, he clearly fingers Congress' main concern was focused on "legislative action far less to protect the public than to solve an athletic cheating problem" Maybe this was not the case...but I don't think Congress can enact laws without any clear justification...It can't just be that "no one knows why" And if it really was "no one knows why" than a hot shot lawyer should be able to rip the arbitrary law to shreds. The law would have no legal or philosophically defensible grounding. Eventually someone's going to challenge its constitutionality. But I'm not a lawyer, so I was just curious.

[ROCKETW19]

I was reading an article on the internet, on a different site. This guy Rick Collings wrote a book "Legal Muscle:Anabolics in America". I haven't read the book. In the article, he clearly fingers Congress' main concern was focused on "legislative action far less to protect the public than to solve an athletic cheating problem" Maybe this was not the case...but I don't think Congress can enact laws without any clear justification...It can't just be that "no one knows why" And if it really was "no one knows why" than a hot shot lawyer should be able to rip the arbitrary law to shreds. The law would have no legal or philosophically defensible grounding. Eventually someone's going to challenge its constitutionality. But I'm not a lawyer, so I was just curious.

My bad bro I meant to say no one knows why it is class 3 drug same as cocain herion ect.

[pprtgr]

My bad bro I meant to say no one knows why it is class 3 drug same as cocain herion ect.

Didn't mean to attack you. It just seems that the laws created insane situations. For instance, this is the week of the Olympia. Only in America, only in America could we have a sport where it is so obvious that every contestant is breaking the law and you can go to the local bookstore and buy magazines where it is so obvious that everyone in those magazines is breaking the law....but the public is supposed to bear the wrath of Congress. Jay Cutler's not going to go to jail, but ordinary people can. And really it shouldn't be against the law to be a "pothead" either. We have a situation where the status quo is just indensible. If it's illegal, then Joe Weider's going out of business, and if not...then stop harassing the public.

[Bouncer]

Legal and sport restrictions

The use of anabolic steroids is banned by all major sporting bodies, including the International Olympic Committee, Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment, ICC, ITF, FIFA, FINA, UEFA, the European Athletic Association, and the Brazilian Football Confederation.

Legal status

The legal status of anabolic steroids varies from country to country: some have stricter controls on their use or prescription than others though in many countries they are not illegal. In the U.S., anabolic steroids are currently listed as Schedule III controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, which makes the first offense simple possession of such substances without a prescription a federal crime punishable by up to one year in prison, and the unlawful distribution or possession with intent to distribute anabolic steroids punishable as a first offense by up to ten years in prison. In Canada, anabolic steroids and their derivatives are part of the Controlled drugs and substances act and are Schedule IV substances, meaning that it is illegal to obtain or sell them without a prescription; however, possession is not punishable, a consequence reserved for schedule I, II or III substances. Those guilty of buying or selling anabolic steroids in Canada can be imprisoned for up to 18 months. Import and export also carry similar penalties. Anabolic steroids are also illegal without prescription in Australia, Argentina, Brazil and Portugal, and are listed as Class C Controlled Drugs in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, anabolic steroids are readily available without a prescription in some countries such as Mexico and Thailand.

United States

The history of the U.S. legislation on anabolic steroids goes back to the late 1980s, when the U.S. Congress considered placing anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act following the controversy over Ben Johnson's victory at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. During deliberations, the American Medical Association (AMA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all opposed listing anabolic steroids as controlled substances, citing the fact that use of these hormones does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for such scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.The same act also introduced more stringent controls with higher criminal penalties for offenses involving the illegal distribution of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. By the early 1990s, after anabolic steroids were scheduled in the U.S., several pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing or marketing the products in the U.S., including Ciba, Searle, Syntex and others. In the Controlled Substances Act, anabolic steroids are defined to be any drug or hormonal substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promote muscle growth. The act was amended by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added prohormones to the list of controlled substances, with effect from January 20, 2005.

Movement for decriminalization

After the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 listed anabolic steroids as Schedule III controlled substances in the U.S., a small movement has arisen that is highly critical of current laws concerning anabolic steroids. On June 21, 2005, Real Sports aired a segment discussing the legality and prohibition of anabolic steroids in America. The show featured Gary I. Wadler, M.D., chairman of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and a prominent anti-steroid activist. When pressed for scientific evidence by correspondent Armen Keteyian that anabolic steroids are as "highly fatal" as is often claimed, Wadler admitted there was no evidence. Bryant Gumbel concluded the "hoopla" concerning the dangers of anabolic steroids in the media was "all smoke and no fire"

[pprtgr]

Thank you Bouncer for the detailed post. Simple possession without a prescription is a federal crime with up to one year for the first offence. A little excessive, ya think. That is totally indefensible. An actual real life person could spend a year in jail for what? And this is because Congress wants to guarantee the public's enjoyment of clean sporting events. I don't think "we" care but I don't want to speak for anyone else. I just know that when I figured out Bonds and Sosa were "on" in the late 90's...my fantasy baseball team crushed the puny competition. I didn't even have to bring any of those fantasy baseball reviews to the draft. I just knew who I wanted on my team. Such and such came into spring training and NOBODY recognized him. Hmm, very interesting....12 Home runs last year....I think he's good for 45 this year.
This law is the very epitome of Congress punishing the public because they think they're supposed to defend "ideals" without consulting, you know, the actual public. Why should everyone continue to look like Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams for ever and ever? So what if medical advances continue and the players evolve?

[Bouncer]

I just think its funny that the FBI, American Medical Association, DEA, FDA, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse all OPPOSED making steroids schedule 3 because they didn't fit the requirements as such.

in other words, the people that know the facts about addiction, medicine, and general all around science all opposed it.

it was the white house, and congress that made it schedule 3 simply because they wanted it there.

[pprtgr]

I just think its funny that the FBI, American Medical Association, DEA, FDA, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse all OPPOSED making steroids schedule 3 because they didn't fit the requirements as such.

in other words, the people that know the facts about addiction, medicine, and general all around science all opposed it.

it was the white house, and congress that made it schedule 3 simply because they wanted it there.

It also didn't fit the requirements of "cheating". Somebody please explain that to me. Who's being swindled and mislead? It's only because of this law that the players had to lie about it.

cheat (cht)
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
v.tr.
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
4. To elude; escape: cheat death.
v.intr.
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
4. Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base.
n.
1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
2. One who cheats; a swindler.
3. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game.
4. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
5. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

[Bouncer]

i would disagree with you.

if something is banned and you are using it for an advantage you are cheating.

[pprtgr]

i would disagree with you.

if something is banned and you are using it for an advantage you are cheating.

AAS was not banned in Baseball. It is not really banned in Bodybuilding, just lip service that's never followed through on. I doubt a single competitor considers he is unfairly disadvantage compared to the others. In that definition I posted, I suppose you are appealing to : "2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards." But I suppose you can make up any rules you want to for a game without justification. Congress can sets the rules on legality and the Olympic committee can set the rules for sports. But that can just as easily be attacked as being arbitrary and capricious. The government is historically notorious. Plessy v. Ferguson was once the law of the land until Rosa Parks and Thurgood Marshall. Just because they say it's true doesn't mean it's actually so. You wrote "if something is banned...." but why is it banned? You continued "and you are using it for an advantage..." Why must I use supplements that don't work? Why is everyone so freaked out by supplements that actually work? You know, that's the opposite of swindling and defrauding. And I would only be getting an advantage that is also available to others. I wouldn't be squirreling anything away solely for myself. It's not like if the Russians are "on" and the Americans aren't and it's not fair. What if someone doesn't want to take anything? Well that's their personal choice. But your religion doesn't have to control mine. For instance, I had a Muslim friend who would abstain from drinking. I on the other hand am a Catholic and can get a glass of wine in church.... To sum it all up, it just isn't cheating. Not as a matter of law. I do respect the ability of organizations to set up their own rules. You know if the NFL thinks it's cheating....then fine....that's cheating as defined by the NFL, but they play a silly little game and make lots of money...and they shouldn't be setting the agenda for the public. As a US citizen, I should not have to abide by laws of organizations that I am not a member of. The IOC should not be influencing US criminal law. I'm not one of their "athletes". They are absolutely out of line. Sorry 'bout the attitude. My feeling is that the correct argument would be to compare bodybuilding to other forms of body modification like tattooing or piercings. If that's what you want to look like...it has nothing to do with cheating. It doesn't make sense to call that cheating.... as defined by what?