Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It’s my body, not the governments
pinggolfer96
Posts: 2,248 Member
Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
41
Replies
-
Bingo.craygslyst1 wrote: »Follow the money.
12 -
Before medications are approved they need to go through rigorous testing and they are meant to be used as something to cure and they can cause side effects.
All the others you have listed are either for recreational use to performance enhancement and cause also serious side effects. That came out of those rigorous testings for meds as a number of them at one stage or another have been through the pharma mill.
Yes it is your body and if you want to you can put anything in if for all I care. But I am glad that before things are on the market at least there is a regime that will check the results and how it performs. Does pharma have too much power? Yes. Is the regime flawed? undoubtedly. But I prefer well researched stuff and quality controls on output on what some money spinning marketing ploy with out science background says it better32 -
So let’s look at the side effects of some of the unregulated miracle cures to the turn from the 19th century.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/85554/15-curious-quack-remedies-age-patent-medicine
The full side effect and dosage of some of the products you mention are NOT harmless, or aren’t fully known. We’ve lost some WWF fighters from over use of steroids, much to the grief of their families.25 -
Maybe the reason people aren't dying from these things is because they can't get them routinely and have been warned about the effects, hmm19
-
For those who keep spouting the efficacy and what not and extensive testing you need to read some articles by doctors and people in the know...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma
http://www.badscience.net/
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/
28 -
And it’s not like alternative medicine is immune to the profit motive.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/alternative-medicine-is-a-34-billion-industry-but-only-one-third-of-the-treatments-have-been-tested-879411/
It’s a major investment to trial through to FDA approval, and a very narrow patent window. Bypassing regulation by marketing sub effective supplements is far more profitable.12 -
This content has been removed.
-
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
Who do you think makes anabolic steroids? Small pharma?32 -
the less government the better. the smaller the government the better. the more local the government the better.28
-
I've taken legal drugs that have pretty much the very most lethal side effects imaginable: Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Taxol.
As a direct result (IMO), I'm here typing this 17+ years after stage III advanced breast cancer (6 tumors, both breasts, largest tumor 3.1cm, local metastasis (one positive lymph node)).
I can only speak for myself: I'm in favor of Big Pharma. "Alive" is an excellent start on the rest of my day.
Take whatever you like, legal or illegal. Accept the consequences, legal or physical.
JMO.64 -
johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
Who do you think makes anabolic steroids? Small pharma?
Craft brewers, duh.
Seriously, if big pharma could sell you steroids they would. The government doesn't regulate them because they make more money by doing so. They'd make more money with a steroid tax.
Even marijuana isn't banned for profit reasons. Whether these things should be banned or not is a worthwhile question, but not selling something isn't how you make more money.12 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I don’t think this is either a personal freedom issue, nor a big pharma issue. This is far more complex than that.
I do think there are elements of government control and big pharma. But, that’s not the whole story.
Motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws get into similar conversations. Yet the data shows that personal freedoms in these areas are not worth the costs of people having personal freedoms, for many reasons. I think the drug argument is the same.
Logic, reason, and nuance will get you nowhere in this argument, unfortunately.
6 -
Or we could just allow everything.
Thin the herd as it were.
Except socialized medicine and end of life costs would really make that expensive. The lawyers would do well, though.7 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I don’t think this is either a personal freedom issue, nor a big pharma issue. This is far more complex than that.
I do think there are elements of government control and big pharma. But, that’s not the whole story.
Motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws get into similar conversations. Yet the data shows that personal freedoms in these areas are not worth the costs of people having personal freedoms, for many reasons. I think the drug argument is the same.
How do others get to decide if the costs of me losing my personal freedom are worth it?
Doesn't that go against the whole idea of PERSONAL freedom? Others don't get to place a value on freedom for me. When they do, it's no longer PERSONAL freedom.
I may not choose to adopt or use many of these things. But I am 100% against others deciding what is and isn't a valuable personal freedom on my behalf. I see that no differently than someone shooting me because they decided that I needed to be killed.
No difference in my calculus.
16 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I don’t think this is either a personal freedom issue, nor a big pharma issue. This is far more complex than that.
I do think there are elements of government control and big pharma. But, that’s not the whole story.
Motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws get into similar conversations. Yet the data shows that personal freedoms in these areas are not worth the costs of people having personal freedoms, for many reasons. I think the drug argument is the same.
How do others get to decide if the costs of me losing my personal freedom are worth it?
Doesn't that go against the whole idea of PERSONAL freedom? Others don't get to place a value on freedom for me. When they do, it's no longer PERSONAL freedom.
I may not choose to adopt or use many of these things. But I am 100% against others deciding what is and isn't a valuable personal freedom on my behalf. I see that no differently than someone shooting me because they decided that I needed to be killed.
No difference in my calculus.
Because your choices affect others. And, when you start impinging on my life, it becomes an issue for someone to step in, find the root cause, and make changes that help eliminate, or alleviate that impingement. I don’t think people understand how economics work. But, if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and become brain damaged, now you’re a drain on your family, the medical community, society, and start draining the various government funds for support your behavior that could have been avoided. It’s unecessary. You just raised my taxes for your freedom. I am all for freedoms that don’t stain others freedoms. But, I’m not for having to care for people being dumb@$$e$.
But why support the motorcycle rider in the first place? It wasn't the rider with no helmet, but those who legislated spreading the responsibly for his care to the taxpayer. Which also gets you more such behavior because there is less disincentive to take personal responsibility.
Who made it my responsibility to care for that person as a ward of the state?
I don't want you to have to care for dum@sses. But the way things are going, the less personal freedom we have, the more such people will be supported by taxes taken from you and me.
The true seeker of freedom does not want your taxes to go up because of the choices of others. The true seeker of freedom wants your taxes to go down because people, not governments are responsible for outcomes. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.19 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I don’t think this is either a personal freedom issue, nor a big pharma issue. This is far more complex than that.
I do think there are elements of government control and big pharma. But, that’s not the whole story.
Motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws get into similar conversations. Yet the data shows that personal freedoms in these areas are not worth the costs of people having personal freedoms, for many reasons. I think the drug argument is the same.
Who cares about complexity and subtlety when there's a Victorian political system more appropriate to an agrarian society to invoke.7 -
You can’t separate the issue of “personal liberty” from that of “how can 300 million people live together in a modern society”. Modern life is a constant process of trying to balance individual liberty with the liberty of others, personal freedom and social responsibility. The need to achieve that balance is describe in most philosophical writings on “Liberty” written since the start of the Enlightenment.
It is my experience that those cry loudest for “personal liberty”, regardless of the consequences, are actually seeking license, not liberty. There’s a difference.38 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
And now you know how women feel.....
I was referring to the title of your posting an not to the banned substances. People already gave you good reasons for the banning. 7 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
At the point where I don't as a tax payer end up having to pay for the medical bills related to drug abuse (which is what use of anabolic steroids is) then I would consider it to be just the decision of the adult involved. That said in the majority of societies there are social safety nets in place to save people who fall. I don't want holes punched in that safety net because some idiots like jumping up and down on it. Therefore I am fine with "no jumping" signs being posted and consequences if you do. Same reason I don't mind laws requiring that everyone wear a seatbelt.
Any adult is free to do whatever they want, there just are some consequences for doing things that negatively impact society. Being reckless in a way that is likely to cause injury (including self-injury) is not something I think society should support and in some cases I think it should have consequences to discourage it.11 -
Personally I think those abusing prescriptions and the doctors providing should get life sentences so those who actually need the medications can get them without jumping thru hoops. Same goes for the methheads making it impossible to get cold medicine. Just either let them overdose or lock them up. Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.3
-
Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
6 -
Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
Yeah but viagra and cialis can easily be bought without a prescription....0 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
Yeah but viagra and cialis can easily be bought without a prescription....
So can cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin11 -
johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
Yeah but viagra and cialis can easily be bought without a prescription....
So can cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin
Little difference in terms of side effects and purpose though. Why should one be restricted from a vasodilator unless they have heart problems? I can understand why cocaine, heroin....etc are illegal. If you want to be locked up in a room and do drugs where you won’t be able to hurt anyone but yourself, be my guest, my problem is when you take a drug or alcohol and your choices affect others health5 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
Yeah but viagra and cialis can easily be bought without a prescription....
So can cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin
Little difference in terms of side effects and purpose though. Why should one be restricted from a vasodilator unless they have heart problems?
Because many have heart problems that are undiagnosed. Hence the need for a prescription.
8 -
johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
Yeah but viagra and cialis can easily be bought without a prescription....
So can cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin
Little difference in terms of side effects and purpose though. Why should one be restricted from a vasodilator unless they have heart problems?
Because many have heart problems that are undiagnosed. Hence the need for a prescription.
But we can legalize alcohol and smoking for those with health problems as well?
2 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Sad thing is we're one of the only nations in the world that require a prescription for viagra so it shows how stupid the system is.
Considering Viagra is (was originally) intended as a med for a few cardiac issues, it makes sense that it would be a prescription medication.
My chem professor was on the team that "invented" Viagra. It wasn't until trials where they noticed that it helped with erectile dysfunction. He told us of their looking at side effects - "hey, look at that!" Then they thought about it and realized it made sense, so they ran trials regarding that usage.
Yeah but viagra and cialis can easily be bought without a prescription....
So can cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin
Little difference in terms of side effects and purpose though. Why should one be restricted from a vasodilator unless they have heart problems?
Because many have heart problems that are undiagnosed. Hence the need for a prescription.
But we can legalize alcohol and smoking for those with health problems as well?
Cost/Benefit (to society)
History shows how well prohibition worked out.
What would be the benefit of removing the prescription requirement for viagra? (For society, not date-rapey frat boys)6 -
Do and think what you want as long as it doesn't harm or negatively impact those around you, but be prepared to face the consequences if your need for individuality and personal moral ideals override the protections our society offers. Yes, things need to be reexamined as we learn more and studied with as little bias as possible. We currently live in a capitalistic society, so lots of stuff is profit-driven. But like, I still see the need for some solid information on publicly available drugs before we let people go crazy. Pro-marijuana in lots of instances, but should people say, give it to their 12-year-old for self-diagnosed sleep issues or recreation? That's where the guidelines come in.
I live in a society, so I accept the need for overarching guidelines for civility and safety for myself and my fellow man. Do I think certain things need to change to create a better life for the majority of people? Absolutely - but I'm a drop in the ocean of billions of people, so I don't expect the world is going to cater to my every want and desire.
We need to have some level of faith that there are enough educated and conventionally morally sound "professionals" who care about society as a whole - doctors, scientists, policy makers, LEOs - to keep the majority of people safe and healthy, or our civil society will come to painful end. There's a fine balance, and it can tilt both ways - not enough regulation, chaos and instability, too much regulation, personal choice, safety, and autonomy go out the window.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions