Go and watch Stronger Faster Bigger, then get back to me. Steroids are a drug, therefore, any drug, when used in the wrong way, are bad for you, but, when used correctly, are fine, and in some cases, life saving, thought you would know that tbh. And I'm not moaning, I don't drink.
it all depends on the type of steroid, the steroids used to open peoples air ways who suffer from asthma is complity different to the ones that the ill infomed use in body building. Some steroids have got a horrible problem of staying with in the body, as the body cant process them. Also steroids led to Mr Arnold schwarzenegger to go under the knife to replace his heart valves, and this was when steroids were simple and weak drugs.
Indeed, but I'm talking about Anabolic Steroids (but most people think a steroid is a steroid...) Anabolics are also used for medical use. Thing is, Arnold was taking steroids way before he stopped growing, some think as young as 14, others think around the 17-18 mark, but at 19 he was absolutely massive, genetics played a big part, but so did steroids. But where did you get that info of Arnold? never heard about it. This is what is commonly known about Steroids. Thing is, steroids are not bad at all, compared to tobacco, alchohol and even overeating, they seem the safest thing on earth compared to those. Nearly 200,000 people died of achohol abuse in one year, Steroids? 3. Same goes for tobacco. Don't bash something that is not as bad as you think, bandwagon jumps into mind.
Only 3 seems hugely unlikely. Even if your just counting the UK. In the few sports I follow, I see far more deaths than that per year of former athletes from heart failure, that most link to past steroid use. In addition there's a scarily high incidence of suicide in competitive body building, so even when the death isn't directly attributed to steroids there may be causal link. Add to that the fact that FAR fewer people use steroids than consume alcohol or tobacco, and a lower number of deaths doesn't make it a safer choice, much less a safe choice.
Hang on. Getting drunk leads to sex? I think I'd pay a good premium if it promised those kinds of results! Wait, that didn't sound right at all. -monkey
No-one says you HAVE to buy alcohol in Britain. Why not just do a France trip once a year? All aboard the booze boat with a small van and save ~75%! Fill the van to the hilt! You can put that 75% you saved NOT paying duty towards next years trip. As an added bonus, non-perishable/long life groceries are about 30% cheaper in France too.
You sure thats still true mate, as the euro is now almost level with are pound, so we cant make much of a saving on exchange rate. Also it dosen't save money, considering the cost of travel, and the amount of times you would have to travel in a year to supply even me with beer. thats 400+ bottles for a year, more than i reckon you could get via customs.
Yes well working in cancer and palliative care I have an acute understanding about the pro's and con's of steroids. And you know what? They're still bad for you. But when you are gasping for breath (asthma) or in chronic joint pain (arthritis) or you suffer from cancer then yes, steroids are the much lesser evil. Doesn't mean they have no side-effects though, and it doesn't mean that you can administer them willy-nilly. They're serious ****. They need a doctor to prescribe them. You can't get them over the counter for a reason. It's that research thing again, see? What data you collect, how you collect them and how you interpret and analyse them. The three deaths you mention were (I presume) recorded in the Glamorgan study which studied the effects of long-term steroid use among 40 body builders who had been using them for more than 20 years. Three of the sample group, all in their early 40s, died during the study period, all of them suddenly. That is 7.5%. Overall male mortality rate in England and Wales for men age 40-44 is 1.78 deaths per 1000 --that is 0.018%. Now considering that body builders are men who work out more regularly and adopt a generally more healthy lifestyle than the average 40+ year-old male, wouldn't you say that a mortality rate 416 times the average isn't a bit suspicious? Frankly tobacco and alcohol look very mild in comparison. But the reason that their preceived death rates are higher is because: 1. more people smoke and drink than abuse anabolic steroids. But you'll find that 60% of users at a drug needle exchange programme tend to be anabolic steroid abusers, so there must be quite a market. Which brings me to 2. steroids are generally not studied as a cause of death, while tobacco and alcohol are. If you don't look, you won't observe... but the Glamorgan study, which is the first of its kind did look and observed a frankly staggering mortality rate amongst this sub-group. Problem is, I suspect that you are not trained in research methodology and statistics (and there is no reason why you should be unless that happens to be part of your job). So you don't think about research in a critical way: how and what figures were obtained, what they mean, how to compare them against other figures.
Well i think this thread has de-railed enough on steroids now. Back to drink, well errr not drinking! There just needs to be a social change, much like there has been with smoking, alot of people in the streets around the UK actual dislike the sight of someone smoking, and ever since the public ban in social places and work places the amount of people that have stopped smoking has increased. Give it another decade and social attitudes towards alcohol might be completely diferent for the better..... I feel sorry for the NHS, having to deal with alcohol related cases, or where people have become over weight due to pure greed and unhealth living.
That's excellent news, as it's often said that sales of alcohol and tobacco also increase during times of recession. I figure by this afternoon we'll all be hungover yet relaxed, while enjoying an after-shag cigarette. -monkey
As far as I understand it's only really going to effect cheap own brand cider, which doesn't even taste nice, and is only drunk by those who don't have much money and want to get wasted. It's just a minimum price, not a tax right? (At least a tax would mean the money could go towards the NHS etc) I heard there was also talk about the possibiltiy of putting the minimum age of 21 in place, which I imagine wouldn't go down to well with uni students.
you reckon? not if my friends are anything to go by... they've already got more machines than they have staff to operate them so many are idle for much of the time as it is. I imagine the monks at Buckfast abbey might be affected (& also sales of Thunderbird & &)
I really don't see the price hike changing anyone's drinking habits or doing any overall good. It's only going to make people with low incomes even more broke. People who drink to get drunk will do so regardless of the price. It's up to the individual to make their own choice on how much they drink. The general public should not be penalised for the actions of others or be forced by the government to change the way they live their lives. As for a previous comment describing that you wouldn't see upper class folk getting up to no good as opposed to chavs on the streets. Maybe the government should focus on creating better social environments and activities in local communities for the younger generation.
You keeps saying that, yet research keeps contradicting you? You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about the government being a nanny state and forcing us to live certain ways, while at the same time making it responsible for how we turn out and behave. If people want the government to stop interfering, they have to handle their own health and social behaviours with some responsibility. Else someone will step in and do it for them. Because while they may want to be free to drink as they please, others want to be free of all the fall-out of their drunken behaviours.
You obviously know your background and I would not deny that it would put some people off. However, from a personal point of view (I am one of those lower income, Scottish, student, come from a "scheme" types) is that a change in price of alcohol will not adversely affect people who already have drink to get drunk attitude. From what I've seen of friends that I have grown up with who binge drink or drink in excess, the reasons behind it are often psychological or simply cultural, it's not because drinking is cheap. Sticking a couple of pounds on a bottle of white lightning will not change peoples relationship with alcohol. It needs to be done in conjunction with teaching kids from an early age about drinking responsibly and giving them alternative social activities and places where they can go to stop from becoming bored. It just seems like a quick fix with no real long term benefits.
It is a quick fix, but largely an effective one. It won't address drinking culture, nor will it address alcoholism. But it does reduce binge drinking. You can argue that the government should provide social activities and teach kids about drinking responsibly, but how is that different from the "nannying" that you accuse them of doing by raising the price of alcohol? You just don't like the taste of what you're being fed, but you don't object to the spoonfeeding per se.
Nexxo, bring us up to date with this research, can you provide real statistics of this research? (Not if 1 in 10 stopped binge drinking then x% of the whole population of the UK will), cause that's a load of rubbish. I'm talking about the actually study. It's funny how the majority of this thread and everyone I have spoken too about this subject state that it won't stop binge drinking, and it's certainly not a coincidence. Like many have said, if people have the money, and they want to get pissed, they will, period. Maybe these benefits people will have a harder time doing so, but they will get access to the alchohol one way or another, maybe they will start to sell weed, or they will just steal it, they will get access to it, with or without the rise of alchohol. And in the state the country and the world is in atm, it's shocking to raise prices, shocking, and I'm not even a drinker.
It's totally different from nannying, and it comes down to choice. Reducing the price is forcing people to change their lives. But if you have the option of social and community building activities then it may not lead to so many kids taking to the streets with alcohol. I don't like what i'm being fed as it's taking my choice away. And it is very annoying that all the government wants is some quick fix and stats to say that they have reduced binge drinking in Scotland. Which doesn't benefit me or where I live in any way. I would gladly be spoon fed other initiatives by the government that I had the 'choice' to partake in. Especially if it done my local community some good in the long term.
