FDA moves on prohormones

Discussion in 'Anything and Everything about dietary supplements' started by Bryan Haycock, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Bryan Haycock

    Bryan Haycock Administrator Staff Member

    Yesterday, the United States Senate approved legislation that allows the US Drug Enforcement Agency to add androstendione (andro), Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) and other steroid precursors to the list of anabolic steroids that are classified as Schedule III Controlled Substances.

    The Bill, S.2195, was originally sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and supported by dietary supplements industry trade associations.

    This legislation, after a pass through conference, will go to the President to be signed into law.
     
  2. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    Interestingly enough there's a 90 grace period in the bill so we can all stock up on these incredibly dangerous substances.
     
  3. So will it be a buyers or sellers frenzy?
     
  4. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    darn, it just keeps getting harder and harder to pump my body full of synthetic steroids! [​IMG]
     
  5. Fear not young Bosox, it won't be any harder to pump yourself full of those dreaded malicious Pro Hormones, that we all know you hold so near and dear to your heart :) , it will just be illegal causing to clog our courts full of more ridiculous cases causing massive overload to our already overburdened justice system [​IMG] but what it will accomplish is lining the pockets of black marketeers with silver and sixpence. :mad:
     
  6. VIPER

    VIPER New Member

    Is there any precursors not on that list? Probably not but worth asking, maybe they missed one on accident ;).
     
  7. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    There are, and no one, repeat no one, is mentioning them so post ban they can be developed and sold for a while, until they are put on the list as well.
     
  8. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    If you go to Power Nutrition, you can chose the Build Your Own Transdermal option and put together a decent 1 testosterone 4 AD stack. I'd also recommend a 4 AD 4 OHT stack. The 4 OHT helps with the 4 AD side effects, but doesn't give much of anything else. It's just more convenient than taking a SERM while on cycle.
     
  9. Calkid

    Calkid New Member

    ...and there goes the only safe alternative to black market steroids. Way to go fellas.
     
  10. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    yeah, sure is rough being forced to train naturally, ain't it?
     
  11. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    Funny, it never occurs to you to ask where you get the right to make that choice for other people, does it? Or are we to get the "We Must Imprison People And Destroy Their Lives For Making A Choice I Disagree With To Protect The Sanctity Of The Sports Records Books" argument again?

    I guess I can only hope one day you're tooling around, doing something you normally do that harms no one else and which you regard as a matter of personal choice, only to get stopped and told by a cop that your choice is no longer acceptable to The People for (insert absurd reasoning of your choice).
     
  12. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    look I have an idea about how crazy this may get but I just HAVE to ask it:

    why are you american's so obsessed with freedom...? I live in a relatively similar country (politically) and just cant understand you.
     
  13. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    What a <span style='color:CC0000'>cool</span> question!

    Here's a quote from U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs:

    &quot;…however defined, the rights of the people are at the core of what it means to be an American. In this way the United States is quite unique, and its tradition of rights very much reflects the American experience…there is very little commonality among Americans — the most diverse nation in the history of the world. U.S. citizens come from every continent, every country on earth.

    What binds this diverse group of individuals together as Americans is the shared belief that <span style='color:008800'>individual liberty is the essential characteristic of free government</span>.&quot;

    I'm providing this quote, without an opinion on whether it's true or not, as just one example of espoused American beliefs—what Americans say or how they want to present themselves (or, at least, what this official government site says or presents). (Contrast these espoused values with those of some other country, say, um, Australia: &quot;While individual Australians are very different, we are united by <span style='color:008800'>our shared future and commitment to community harmony</span>.&quot; Doesn't sound half-bad, actually.)

    As for explanations, a book review in The New Republic says, &quot;no one has offered a satisfactory explanation of why anti-governmental ideas are so powerful in America.&quot;

    Winner, in my book, of the best argument title of the day!
     
  14. Because our country was founded on this very simple principle.
    Now to define Liberty
    noun-immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
    noun-freedom of choice; &quot;liberty of opinion&quot;; &quot;liberty of worship&quot;; &quot;liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases&quot;; &quot;at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes&quot;
    noun-personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
    noun-leave granted to a sailor or naval officer
    Threw that last one just for reminiscence. [​IMG]
     
  15. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    I'd have to ask who wouldn't be obsessed with freedom? Do you enjoy having other people make your choices for you? Do you enjoy waking up in the morning not able to put the responsibility for all that's good and bad in your life on the shoulders of the guy in the mirror?

    I personally can't fathom people who so easily give away their liberty, and more often than not the liberty of others without first asking if they mind at all. Not only can't I understand it in principle, I can't understand it in practice because of the horrid results such trades of liberty almost always result in.

    The love of liberty stems from one point, self ownership. No one but me determines my life, my thought, and my ability to act. In order to preserve that right for myself, I have to be willing to die to preserve it for everyone else who wants it, which means taking it very seriously.

    And that attitude comes from seeing clearly. It would be annoying as can be if you sat down at a restaurant and ordered a meal, and just as you were about to eat someone came in and censored you meal, took away one thing, replaced it with another, etc., and claimed it was all for your benefit. Even if that turned out to be true, who was that person to do such a thing without asking? It's no different when it's done at the behest of 50%+1 of the population (democracy).

    Those who love liberty understand and love the concept of self ownership, with all its attendent benefits and liabilities. Those who don't love liberty understand and love the concept of nonself ownership, or slavery, with all its attendent benefits and liabilities.

    All told, I'd rather be free than a slave, no matter how well pampered a slave I might be.
     
  16. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    I like your answer better than mine, Dan, as it is much more direct.

    But it's a really <span style='color:CC0000'>cool</span> question, Adam, because it's so distinctly &quot;non-American.&quot; (Hardly surprising, coming from someone who's Australian.) Few Americans, I think, wherever they stand on the political spectrum, would characterize the American view of freedom as an &quot;obsession,&quot; if that word is defined as &quot;a persistent disturbing preoccupation.&quot; (But, one is, rightly or wrongly, perfectly free to do so, I suppose—Voltaire would have agreed with that.)

    I don’t know who discovered water, but it wasn’t a fish.
    —Marshall McLuhan

    [Interesting (I hope) aside:
    Less than two weeks ago, Anna Quindlen of Newsweek (U.S. edition) ran a column suggesting that the U.S. require voting, with non-voting subject to <span style='color:FF3300'>fine</span>, as in (you know, Adam) Australia. (Quindlen had some Australian exchange students visiting who had heard about the typically low voter turnout for the U.S. in class and they were wondering why people weren't &quot;concerned about paying the fine.&quot;) One professor of political science, who disagreed with the idea of fining non-voting, raised it in his class and said, &quot;The overwhelming response was, not surprisingly, that it was a terrible idea.&quot; Not surprising, that is, if you're asking American students.]

    (And my response does not take into account xarhx's post because, as usual, I just finished drafting mine as he posted his.)
     
  17. To comment on Jeff's post about fining for non-voting.

    The United States is so very different from any nation, by design, our forefathers after being oppressed by a RULED nation looked to what it would take to PREVENT this from ever happening, so the underlying POWER was divested to the inhabitants of the nation by the power of the Vote, now many people today believe that this POWER has been purposely removed from them, which in actuallity isn't true, so some choose not to voice their opinion by not voting. Now should we punish these people for it, no that would simply be UN-AMERICAN because everyone has a right to CHOOSE. What we as a nation who takes voting and our Liberty to vote, or not, should do is try and make those who feel their vote is pointless understand the purpose and intent behind our fore fathers giving us this right. So anyway here is my political contribution to the masses on this upcoming week of American Rights and Liberty.

    So many do don't understand the electoral voting system and how it fits into the Electoral college. So for those who do not read the following.

    Ok so what does this all mean, very simply, your right to vote DOES make a difference and anyone who is concerned with this Nation should exercise this right.

    Preventing BS laws like Banning Prohormones.
     
  18. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Just as a pretense of staying on topic:

    As for adding these steroid precursors to the list Schedule III Controlled Substances, I think Calkid's wry comment about eliminating the only safe, legal alternative to black market steroids sums it up.

    Back to &quot;freedom, &quot;voting,&quot;&quot; and all that:

    That political science professor I alluded to says, in his column, &quot;I do believe all Americans should vote. However, in any democracy that believes in choice as a key democratic component, to vote or not to vote is a personal matter.&quot; That prof, Dan and I are just &quot;too American,&quot; I guess, to go along with a fine for non-voting.

    I agree completely with Dan about voting. Your vote does count.

    In 2000, in several states (aside from Florida, which the whole planet knows about), the difference in the popular vote between the two major candidates was just <span style='color:006600'>a few thousand</span> or <span style='color:006600'>a few hundred</span> votes:

    Oregon 6795
    Wisconsin 5708
    New Mexico <span style='color:CC0000'>366</span>

    I'm sure there are at least one or two people in New Mexico who regret that they could have voted but did not—or are happy that they did. So, <span style='color:FF6600'>if you're registered to vote in the U.S. election this time around, <span style='color:CC0000'>vote</span>!</span>

    (Adam and others can take our posts as more evidence that the &quot;fine-for-nonvoting&quot; system is needed in the U.S. Fine! Oops, I mean…)

    [PC Alert:
    Hey, no one says &quot;forefathers&quot; any more, Dan—it's &quot;founders&quot; or &quot;framers.&quot; Never mind the fact that they were all male.

    Democratic candidate Carol Moseley Braun in one debate &quot;tripped on the word &quot;forefathers&quot; as if censoring herself midstream before choosing the replacement word 'ancestors.' 'This is not the country my fore– ancestors fought for,' she declared.&quot;

    She could have just as easily said &quot;fore-parents&quot; or something, maybe. These things matter out here in California.

    Just ribbing you, Dan<span style='color:000000'>!</span>]
     
  19. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    I strongly disagree with the assertion that everyone should vote. I'd rather have 25 percent voter turnout with 100 percent KNOWLEDGEABLE voters than 100 percent voter turnout with 25 percent knowledgeable voters.

    Don't vote just for the sake of voting, vote because you understand the candidates and can make an educated vote that actually represents what you want.

    You'd be surprised how little most people know about either of the candidates, regurgitated propaganda aside.
     
  20. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Oh, I did say that, didn't I?

    I was referring to people who have some opinion or knowledge and stay away from the polls because they're &quot;too busy,&quot; their vote &quot;won't count&quot; or any of the usual excuses.

    I'll amend it in light of Bosox's comments, with which I agree. Ideally, all Americans should vote and know enough about the candidates, issues or the propositions to make an informed choice. If you're voting &quot;just to vote,&quot; it obviously distorts the process. (Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park, said that recently. Stone says, &quot;…we thought to encourage uninformed voters to go vote isn't going to help the country that much. If you don't really know what you want to do and not really sure then just don't vote…&quot; Of course, most people like to think they're informed.)

    Interestingly, this year I've seen and heard, with regard to the myriad of propositions on the ballot in California, &quot;official&quot; statements saying &quot;You do not have to vote on everything. Choose the issues you care about, learn more about them and just vote for those,&quot; which is along the lines of &quot;Don't vote just to vote&quot;—&quot;official&quot; not in the government sense but in the sense of non-partisan organizations who are interested in informing people about voting and the issues.

    Unfortunately, cynical as I am, I wouldn't be all that surprised to know how little people really know about the candidates.
     

Share This Page