Should Prohormones be illegal

Bryan, while I may be over-stepping my bounds by asking this because you have a business to run but still: do you believe that prohormones should be regulated? Originally, I had hoped your poll would have more options (aka, prohormones should be illegal for sports/competition or regulated via age, etc...) but it didn't. So, feel free to abstain or what-not but I really would be interested in your take on the whole pro-hormone or supplement thing :)
 
First, prohormones have a meniscule anabolic effect in comparison to steroids, so they should not be clumped together in that regards. Prohormones being made illegal does create jobs though: for blackmarket prohormone makers and sellers. LMAO. I can't imagine a world where a tab of andro can land you in as much trouble as some narcotic! I think more people will just buy and use steroids then. Why not? More effective, cheaper, just as illegal, so go for it. The Senators who are trying to pass these bills are ignorant of what the mind frame of people who use these prohormones really is.

Want more muscle, but afraid to use roids even though I know they work better, so use prohormones cause they are legal. Uh oh, now prohormone illegal too, but still want muscle. If prohormone and roid illegal, and roids work better and cheaper, why not use roids? Me use roids!!! Yippeee!
 
The problem is inconsistent reasoning. One the one hand, with prohormones, the policy makers seems to want legislation to protect us from ourselves. Okay, I'm fine with that; the masses are stupid. But on the other hand, they allow the free consumption of cigarettes, perhaps saying "your body is your business." So which is it? You can't have both.

Unfortunately the tobacco lobby isn't as powerful as the prohormone lobby, if there even is one. I agree with Biz in that, if this passes you will see increased use of true steriods.
 
While hypocrisy sucks, what does hiding behind hypocrisy make you? Rather than actually giving a solid argument, some of y'all are too ready to point out the fallacies of the government to hide behind that rather than giving a good or logical argument.
 
Just as a side note...
Prohormones are illegal here in Israel.
They have always been illegal.
The problem with making prohormones illegal (in the states, for that matter) is simply the fact that they were legal. I'm not sure what the situation is at the moment, but it seems to me this would very quickly create a black market.
That, in turn, would most surely be much more dangerous to body builders, with the lack of regulation/inspection/etc.
 
IMHO the fact of the matter in the States is down to the lobbying contingent. Look at cigs, are they dangerous if abused? Yes. Are they illegal? No. BUT they have a very strong lobbying effort in the U.S. If prohormones were turned into a substance controlled by the pharmaceutical industry (strong lobby) they would be legalized. There has been attempts by the pharma lobby to make nutritional substances available per Dr. prescription, etc. in the past few years. Bad news, bah. :mad:
 
Cylus, a logical argument for not banning prohormones really is not applicable here. Why? Because the government has not seen fit to conduct independent studies to evaluate the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of prohormones before trying to ban them. It is just our word aginst theirs, and they hold the power when it comes to regulating prohormones. Aspirin when abused can be deadly. So can alcohol, cigarettes, and a slew of other OTC drugs. The government knows this and yet allows them to remain legal. The government does not know prohormones are bad for us, yet wants to make them a narc. How can you give a logical argument aginst that?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BIZ @ Oct. 31 2003,8:12)]First, prohormones have a meniscule anabolic effect in comparison to steroids, so they should not be clumped together in that regards.
Click to expand...
Make an oral 17-ak 1-testosterone product or try an injectable 4-andronestediol cypionate product and maybe you'll change your mind. The only reason they're actually much weaker is because the delivery systems aproved for medicines can not be applied to supplements. Just try taking an oral non 17-ak version of testosterone and you won't see much in the way of gains.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BIZ @ Oct. 31 2003,8:12)]First, prohormones have a meniscule anabolic effect in comparison to steroids, so they should not be clumped together in that regards.
Click to expand...
Make an oral 17-ak 1-testosterone product or try an injectable 4-andronestediol cypionate product and maybe you'll change your mind. The only reason they're actually much weaker is because the delivery systems aproved for medicines can not be applied to supplements. Just try taking an oral non 17-ak version of testosterone and you won't see much in the way of gains.
 
Biz, while I was mostly just ranting, my point was that I'd like to see people argue whether prohormones themselves are safe enough to ensue continued legalization for the general public or whether they should be regulated. The question on everyone's mind should concern the safety of prohormones, not the hypocrisy of the government. If you honestly think that prohormones are safe enough such that they shouldn't be regulated, please state why; that's the kind of argument I'd rather see than this "big brother" conspiracy bull$hit.

Edit:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So can alcohol, cigarettes, and a slew of other OTC drugs. The government knows this and yet allows them to remain legal.
Click to expand...

Although legal, they are all regulated in some manner or another; thus, by comparing them, are you suggesting the prohormones be likewise be regulated?
 
The government wont bother with regulation and all that, because there isnt enough money to be made off taxing them
sad.gif


So in the general publics eye of prohormone = steroid and steroid =bad @$$ cheaters therefor prohormone = bad, lets ban it
 
Cylus:
I would love to see some regulation of prohormones and their manufacturers/distributors, maybe then Impact Nutrition will quit advertising their products as "legal" steroids. I agree with Aaron about the taxation of prohormones. Never happen. It will be interesting to see what stance the government takes on this in the next few years... In the meantime, alot of companies are already using it to boost sales. "This product will soon be illegal, stock up on it now!!!"
laugh.gif
 
I would prefer some regulation of legal prohormones. The regulation process is often dismally inadequate, but it might help protect quality of the products, and therefore might also help protect users.

For me, the issue hinges on some subjective points. I have heard so many stories about supplements that don't contain the ingredients listed on the container, that I am reluctant to take many of them. With substances as potent as hormones, that is a particularly strong concern for me.

Regulation should (at least theoretically) improve the odds that we at least get what we pay for. Unfortunately, we'll undoubtedly have to pay more. But I prefer that tradeoff.

Let us decide what we do to ourselves, but help us understand what we're doing to ourselves...
 
I seem a lot of arguments that say that the government should protect us from ourselves because we are old enough and ugly enough to do this ourselves.

There are a lot of other cases where the government does this eg.
* You have to wear seatbelts in cars
* You have to wear a helmet if you ride a bike

The funny thing is that eating KFC every day for life is perfectly legal, but not that safe, but I'm digressing.


Why would the government legilate to protect us from ourselves ? Do they care that much ? I imagine that alot have to do with the fact that if we hurt ourselves, we hurt others as well. Friends and family might get sad if we die and the public health system has to look after us if we injure ourselves badly. This isreally the only explaination I can come up with.

On the subject of steriods and prohormones, I think the nature of the side effects are that they are annoying but life threatening, so Idon't see the need to make them illegal.

I think education is imporant as many people do abuse these drugs.

Rainier.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Twin Peak @ Nov. 11 2003,7:55)]I think people are confusing the legality of a substance with regulation of that substance.
They are not the same.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Steroids are not illegal, they're controled substances. Heroin, as an example, is an illegal substance.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Calkid @ Nov. 01 2003,5:23)]The problem is inconsistent reasoning. One the one hand, with prohormones, the policy makers seems to want legislation to protect us from ourselves. Okay, I'm fine with that; the masses are stupid. But on the other hand, they allow the free consumption of cigarettes, perhaps saying "your body is your business." So which is it? You can't have both.

Unfortunately the tobacco lobby isn't as powerful as the prohormone lobby, if there even is one. I agree with Biz in that, if this passes you will see increased use of true steriods.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should propose a PH tax?

The perpetuation of cigarette smoking has been assured by the fact that government now has a large stake in the tobacco industry.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (restless @ Nov. 11 2003,2:00)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Twin Peak @ Nov. 11 2003,7:55)]I think people are confusing the legality of a substance with regulation of that substance.
They are not the same.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Steroids are not illegal, they're controled substances. Heroin, as an example, is an illegal substance.
Click to expand...
Not exactly what I was getting at. Steroids are effectively illegal for anabolic purposes. You can only get a script for a medial reason.

I was driving at the idea that PHs (and steroids for that matter) can be permitted for bodybuilding/athletic use but controlled in the sense of who can sell them, who can get them, and what claims can be made.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Cylus @ Nov. 01 2003,5:45)]While hypocrisy sucks, what does hiding behind hypocrisy make you? Rather than actually giving a solid argument, some of y'all are too ready to point out the fallacies of the government to hide behind that rather than giving a good or logical argument.
Click to expand...
The onus isn't on us to argue for the legality of anything.

It's the burden of those who would prohibit something (PHs in this case) to demonstrate what net good would come about through prohibition.

The ledger is stacked pretty squarely against prohibition in my opinion.

Benefits:
- Reduced incidence of PH-related health problems. I have yet to hear of a case, so we can assume this is a small benefit.
- Maybe reduced "cheating" in sports. Frankly I couldn't care less.

Costs:
- Reduced freedom.
- Increased law enforcement costs (including significant opportunity costs, since LE resources are diverted from more important tasks).
- Increased burden on judicial system from dealing with non-violent offenders.
- Possible increase in use of full-blown AAS.
- Reduced quality of life for people who currently experiencing benefits from legal PH use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top