True. Likewise, I don't really care about the legality of anabolic steroids one way or another. My previous comment was virtually all responsive to your last line (i.e. "what am I missing? I may be way out of the loop but I've heard very few people ever call for their legalization").

I would go far enough to say that I believe steroid production and use should be decriminalized. If drugs are going to be criminalized by statute, I think our metrics for criminality should be based on dangers and addictiveness.

And because the academy of medicine has expeditiously trialed steroids, and has largely concluded that generally active, somewhat healthy people (those who get into steroid cycling) can use anabolic-androgenic steroids concurrently with adjunct hormones in a safe way without notable long-term effect; they're not actually any worse for you than an imbalanced diet (when done properly).

Thus, because of the more rounded understanding that their physiological harm potential is not actually that significant when used correctly, and because what I personally believe should be the base metrics for criminalizing a drug (bodily danger and addictiveness), I don't think a reasonable argument can be made for the continued prohibition.

Or rather, the only reasonable argument that can be made for the continued prohibition of steroids is one based almost entirely upon the regulatory athletic standards for professional / competitive athletes. That's not necessarily a bad argument either, as there is no question - steroids are performance enhancing drugs, period. That said, are we really criminalizing anyone's possession/use of something solely because of how its legality might complicate the maintenance of standards in professional or collegiate athletics? If so, that's a bit weak from a legal standpoint. I can think of no other population-wide prohibition on the books that only really exists to insulate .01% of the population from its effects.