History, responsibility justify the use of steroids

The scene is Britain, 1889. In search of a chemical to lengthen the human lifespan,… The scene is Britain, 1889. In search of a chemical to lengthen the human lifespan, neurologist Charles-Edouard Brown-Sequard injects himself with a preparation of dog- and guinea pig-testicle extract. Though the hypodermic injection leads to short-term gains in his vitality and strength, the Brown-Sequard Elixir, as it came to be known, does not achieve its purpose of fending off the inevitable: Brown-Sequard died in 1894.

Of course, the practice of using substances for performance gain or merely enhancing one’s physical stature has been around for thousands of years. Naturally, as our knowledge of the human body and its chemistry has increased, so has the potency of these substances. Today it comes as a presupposition to many of us – an undeniable fact of modern life – that anabolic steroid abuse is a major problem in our culture. Still, I have an oddly difficult time trying to justify exactly why we feel that way.

According to an article on a vitamin and health-supplements Web site, athletes take anabolic steroids to bulk up and enhance their muscle mass and to discourage fat buildup. These steroids spur protein production in the body, which in turn builds up muscle during exercise. When taken in the proper dosage, the steroids are supposed to enhance the body’s tissue-building properties, while suppressing the undesirable secondary sexual effects they’ve become known for. It’s easy to imagine why a professional athlete or anyone who wants to control his or her body composition would find that attractive.

But anabolic steroid use has been deemed such a hazard that the U.S. government has declared it a banned substance. The Drug Enforcement Agency has it listed as a Schedule III Controlled Substance, meaning a first-time conviction of simple possession could entail a one-year imprisonment in addition to a fine of at least $1,000. The U.S. Congress continues to pour its resources into investigating the role of performance-enhancing substances within the world of athletics, and the topic seems to make an almost daily appearance on “Pardon the Interruption.”

Media reports give the impression that steroid use is rampant in the United States, particularly with high school- and college-aged men. However, according to the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future study, the amount of eighth, 10th and 12th graders trying steroids at least once has steadily dropped since 2000. Their latest studies reported the amount of 12th graders having ever used steroids at 2.2 percent. Now take into account that the same study found 7.8 percent of those high school seniors had experimented with cocaine.

To some extent, banning steroids is about protecting ourselves from their negative effects. Most objections to anabolic steroids come from their well-known side effects: hair loss, hormone imbalance, pimple breakouts, shrunken testicles and gynecomastia (male mammary gland enlargement). According to WebMD, developing teens are at particular risk for additional complications, including limiting long-bone growth and inhibiting the user’s potential height.

But there is a tremendous difference in the mindset of an impressionable kid who still doesn’t have his driving permit and an educated adult looking to bulk up quickly alongside a healthy diet and exercise. That’s why we utilize age-dependent laws on other substances, namely alcohol. Certainly most teens aren’t ready to weigh the pros and cons of taking a substance that might permanently alter their physiques, for better or worse. But many adult bodybuilders and even casual non-athletes are capable of recognizing the risks and benefits involved.

Of course, the other main objection to anabolic steroids comes from the playing field. What are we to think of a professional football player who willingly puts his own health at risk by taking unsafe levels of steroids, all to get a half-step on his opponent? Is that fair to competitors who might not be willing to put their own bodies at risk, too? It might not be, but that argument seems more suited to individual leagues to decide upon. That goes for the NFL, MLB and International Olympic Committee: Let these private organizations decide what’s best for their own athletes instead of letting the federal government.

When it comes to private personal use, however, it seems that an acceptable middle ground between protecting teenagers and allowing intelligent adults to weigh the consequences can be reached if we allow ourselves to re-evaluate the stigma surrounding it.

E-mail Brandon at bkp3@pitt.edu.