It's because of the arbitrary law thing.

To me, this is very similar to the pot vs alcohol/cigarettes debate.

Opposing PEDs means you must oppose every other activity that involves personal risk? That's a pretty dumb hyperbola.

But this has been covered. I can buy a 4-6 week cycle of legal steroids on Amazon for $50 or less.

Why? What's the difference between opposing someone who uses PED's recreationally and someone that's rides a motorcycle recreationally? Let's assume for the sake of arguement that the PED's are of the legal variety.

Closer analogy would be riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

No, it's not. Helmet or not you are more likely to be injured or killed on a bike than personal auto.

One person chooses to use legal PED's for rec use because they like and enjoy them and one person rides a motorcycle because they like and enjoy it. I actually believe the motorcycle is a greater risk of healthy than PED's, but for the sake of arguement let's assume they are the same. Both legal, both higher risk of injury/death than PED free/personal auto.

Again what is the difference?

No one can ever logically or intelligently answer why they are opposed to steroids. Ever.

Bad because someone said so, but I have no idea who that someone is.

Injectables or pro hormones?

Lyle Alzado caused the big panic even though his doctor said no way that steroids caused his cancer.

Not injectables, but some transdermals, prohormones, and designer steroids. Prohormones convert to steroids in the body where as the designer steroids are already active. You can get both. The DS's were just old steroids that big pharma didn't patent because they had better stuff patented already. Patrick Arnold (former Balco chemist) brought this type of stuff to the market about 10-15 years ago.

LOL.. why? Because it's a reeruned and pointless comparison that serves no logical purpose. We could sit here and pose the same question regarding millions of other activities that involve some sort of personal risk. But that doesn't make the individual opinions of each comparable, simply because of a risk factor.

So you can't tell me the difference. Thanks.

Oh I agree 100%.

What I meant was the same people who think this stuff should be illegal have no issue with people riding a motorcycle with no helmet which is inherently more dangerous.

LMAO... :facepalm:

Congratulations on your personal victory in this matter. Today, you changed the world.