It's the old use versus abuse argument. No level is safe, but there's a very big difference between 0ni and his 250mg/week and the guy a friend of mine met who was offered roids in his second session at the gym, accepted, didn't even ask what it was he was taking and had the guy who offered them to him (who he barely knew) do the pinning.
Similarly, I've met opiod addicts who lead perfectly normal lives and follow best-practices on sterility and purity, then I've met the opiod addict who was in hospital with multiple abscesses of his groin secondary to unsterile injections, had HIV but didn't want to get treatment for it until it was basically forced on him and snuck out of the hospital every night (we think) to shoot up.
I've also met a meth addict who was completely functional in society. Bad history of childhood sexual abuse, which lead to a bunch of substance use issues and significant other mental health issues, but was still able to get up every day, take her kids to school and work a full day. She also didn't use in front of the kids and provided for them.
Panadol and coffee are both fairly safe drugs except in overdose, but it's all a sliding scale. The average person using panadol or coffee uses them responsibly, but outliers don't. Then on the other end, you have something like meth in which the (very occasional) outlier uses it responsibly and even then you'd prefer to get them off it.
The simple fact that the government has declared steroids S8/illegal for personal use doesn't factor in a discussion of the morality of their use. The real discussion should be on public health burden and harm to society caused by their illegality versus their legality. Personally, I'd think the burden would be lower with education and easier checking of purity, but I have no evidence for that.
Of course, a discussion of nuances like harm prevention doesn't sell well to the average voter.
