You have to give this much to the Bushies---they know which buttons to push. Lots of mediaheads thought Bush had gone off the deep end when he devoted part of his State of the Union address, not to Iraq or prison torture or the economy, but steroids in baseball as an important political issue.

Recent so-called revelations (stories based on alleged Grand Jury testimony still under seal) started a firestorm, more or less led by the less than Red State advocate, the San Francisco Chronicle. Talk about leaping to conclusions and making a broad accusation of immorality, either out of sincere outrage, or to sell papers or get votes.

Does anybody actually know what steroids are, what the substances involved actually do, what the health risks actually are, etc.? Why do people go balllistic over some substances they call Drugs but not others which are also potent drugs, but which are advertised on TV as miracle cures, though most of the commercials consist of recitations of awful side effects---drugs that may be really unsafe when used as directed, even more unsafe when used as a cure-all, and are basically untested by anybody outside the employ of the company that profits from their sale? Why is marijuana the devil's weed and people go to jail for it, and even known medicinal purposes are outlawed, and to make it even more absurd, the entire substance known as hemp, which for centuries provided paper and fiber that nobody got high from, is also outlawed? While alcohol and cigarettes are legal, when they kill hundeds of thousands of people a year, including people entirely innocent of using them, and we all know this?

Let's get a little sane on the subject of steroids. In the very same newspaper on the same day as its editor defends its anti-steroids in baseball crusade, a column by Joan Ryan gives another point of view which ought to be considered. Perhaps a truly informed debate on steroids and health would be in order?

Let's get real about sports and steroids