The famous ye unfortunate hue and cry raised in response to androstenedione’s use by Mark McGuire is highly condemnable, mostly because the said drug is not a drug but a natural hormone, and partly because the chemical is not worth a guy’s reputation. The hormone is widely marketed by food stores, and is not classified a drug under FDA rules and regulations. Moreover, contrary to what the hue and cry seem to be implying, Mark McGuire did not venture into illegal crevices of the world to get this drug. Unluckily for him and for all the other athletes, this media-oriented uproar has led to overreaction from a number of organizations in the form of banning this chemical altogether. This ban, however, is far from rational. For one, the same prohibition has not been imposed upon other widely used supplements which are scientifically proven to have much more effects than androstenedione itself, creatine being a very strong example in this regard. For another, no documented proof has come forward that states that the organizations have concrete evidence of any advantage that the hormone in question can bestow upon the user. There it is, the paternalistic attitude of the organizations, dictating the world against the use of a substance that has no detrimental effects, and yet is being banned only because an orthodox dictatorship exists. Similar is the story of Javier Sotomavor, the world-record holder jumper, who was banned for his use of cocaine. Did cocaine make him a better athlete? It obviously did not. Rather it only made him worse, and so the sports organizations had no right in placing a ban over him.
Here, however, one point must be mentioned. Athletes usually take immature steps or make decisions prematurely. They, for instance, have been known to sign upon contracts and agreements without perusing them entirely and so end up being prohibited to speak against certain offices or rules. Previously, they did not even decide their own appearances. Their coaches dictated their haircuts. Today, they are dictated on what to wear. They are propagated as nothing short of role models for the others. Their lives, therefore, are completely dictated and controlled by their coaches and agents, so much so that their freedom of expression and decision-making are virtually non-existent. What is worse that this way of life is heavily rationalized for the greater good; rigidity, however, is never an answer.
It is a fact that not everyone using steroids has complete knowledge of the risks imposed by them. We are, therefore, faced by a duty that makes it incumbent upon us to advertise the risks in the right manner and with the right words. But this is where we should draw the line. We can only inform the others of the benefits and risks not impose our decisions upon them. The power of exercising authority over the others feels good for the human mind, and yet it is the worst form of corruption that leads to further corruption. I know a number of authorities who do nothing but complain of their heavy duties, of the heavy work they have to do to oversee their subordinates and their works, and yet never agree to hand over their duties to another, even transiently. Why is that? Simply because they are able to control lives of the others in their positions, and would not give up the pleasure to do so.
The National Institute of Drug Abuse remains a focal point of the propaganda against drugs. It has an extremely immature brochure that displays the drugs like actual people. Heroin, for instance, is referred to as Miss Bellum. Now this Miss Bellum makes you a criminal even if you use it only once in your lifetime. The wording of that brochure remains highly biased, and the story-like explanation of the drugs presents an extremist view.
The above example, however, is merely used for elaborating the point under discussion. It does not promote the use of heroin. Indeed, heroin and cocaine should not be legalized on account of their addiction potentials; on the other hand, marijuana or steroids should not be banned because they do not possess addiction potentials. What remains unfortunate for us is the fact that most of us, health professionals included, fail to see the line drawn between the term “habit” and the term “addiction”. Simply stated, habit is something of routine, but not necessarily harmful; the term, in fact, does not pertain to any benefit or harm at all. On the contrary, addiction signifies something negative and maintains an aura of condemnation. Furthermore, habits persist among us because it the process, and not the consequence, that is generally pleasurable. Contrary to the popular belief, the habit of smoking comes seldom from nicotine craving, and more from the pleasure one learns to associate with pulling a long puff on the cigarette.
Addictions, on the other hand, present with an altered picture. Addictions persist because the consequences are desired, not the processes. A heroin addict, for instance, draws no pleasure from the process of injecting the drug intravenously; also, he does not repeat this act more than once daily or a few times per week. The act, therefore, cannot be called a habit. The person craves not for the needles, but for the effects of heroin once it starts acting on the body. As such, his body and mind become dependent upon heroin. Physical dependence, therefore, is a hallmark of addiction but not of habituation.
Cigarette smoking, as mentioned previously, is not an addiction; it is more of a habit. However, the word addiction is very often used for this habit, the reason being that propaganda agencies tend to emphasize upon the detrimental effects it imposes. It must, however, be clarified that cigarettes are rarely associated with severe withdrawal symptoms that necessitate hospitalization and emergency measures to save the person in question. Even though the psychological stress is great, physical agony is at a minimum, and this is where we say that cigarettes form habits, not addictions. Please visit us for buy anabolic steroids and you can also buy sustanon.