FDA moves on prohormones

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

  1. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    As jeff stated, I come from a country with compulsory voting. In response to Bosox's argument, I have also thought about that argument as well except we also have two major parties in Australia, the liberal's and the labour party. Most people have a general idea of who will best represent their interests.

    And, the argument is basically kicked out the door because the educated people tend to come from the 'upper' strata of society and vote for the party who will represent them best, leaving the working/lower classes at a disadvantage.

    I cant wait to read the rest of your posts but I'm working 7 days a week and don't have time to blink..

    Sorry if I offended anyone also.
  2. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    Look, I had this massive post but it was way too heated.

    So I'll just say read Noam Chomsky.
  3. I strongly disagree with the disagreement about the assertion that everyone should vote but I agree that you should know what and who it is you are voting for, our forefathers( ;) Jeff) understood how important it is to cast your choice as should every American but choice comes with reponsibility. The responsibility to not only base your vote on knowledge but also on your values.

    Now Bosox in his statement is talking of the Presidential Race, I am talking and have pointed out how important, and probably even more so, your vote is when it comes to your Representation in the House and Senate, these are your law makers. These are your Representatives. So from the school board elections to the Senate Races these are your PEERS that are going to Represent YOU. These were the lawmakers that enacted the bill to ban prohormones, how many of you knew that your Representatives were either for or against this issue? How many of you will now decide to base your vote on your current Representatives knowing that they have decided to remove one more freedom from you?

    BTW Bosox, have you turned old enough to vote yet, I am very glad to see a young man who takes his voting right responsibility earnestly and understands that you should learn about the candidates and it's an honor to all Americans that a young man who hopefully is voting this year understands this. Good Job [​IMG]
  4. jeffw

    jeffw New Member


    Huh? Whatever. I still agree with whatever the forefathers, foremothers, fore-parental units, founders, framers, ancestors had in mind, though, maybe, they weren't so confident about what we'd think they had in mind:

    But back to the topic at hand…

    I'm wondering, Adam, as you started us down the path of &quot;freedom&quot; (or being &quot;obsessed&quot; with freedom—that word is just so &quot;in your face&quot;, one has to admire its candor, even if one disagrees<span style='color:000000'>!</span>) and all that, if your initial comment was in response to how Americans react, generally, (or, maybe, how you perceive the reaction) or the reaction to this issue specifically—either how this issue should be framed (maybe in terms other than &quot;freedom&quot; or &quot;individual choice&quot;) or that it is, in fact, the &quot;right&quot; approach, as in &quot;the ban on prohormones is [sensible|no big deal|perfectly within the purview of the government whatever we think|etc.]&quot; or something else. I have no idea how Australia handles such things or how Australians view them.

    I'm not trying to put you on the spot and feel free to decline to state, if you want, if, for no other reason than it really isn't &quot;your&quot; issue. I assume you were serious about asking your question and not understanding. Helping to understand runs both ways so I'm asking about your viewpoint.

    But, if you answer, be honest and don't worry about offending people—even we Americans can &quot;take it,&quot; I think—so we can learn something.
  5. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    Hi Jeff,

    had a bit of difficulty making sense of that question but I'll try my best.

    I enquired about prohormones a little while back and as far as I know DHEA and some andro's (the ones I asked about) are not available over the counter over here. My opinion on the prohormone ban, umm.. its the role of the government to shape a society into something that maximally benefits all its citizens. Personally I think the 'freedom' xahrx describes is more suited to anarchism than democracy, and is an unrealisable utopian ideal.

    As usual dkm keeps his head and advises people to vote for what they believe in.. BUT if everyone does, and the bill passes, it is much more likely to be the will of the people has prevailed, than political oppression. So nobody's freedom is being stripped from them, society is moving in a direction that is in sync with the majority of the population.

    So thats basically my argument.
    Please respond!

  6. I went to GNC yesterday and the young lady there said that the Andros are all banned now. If memory serves me correct is there not still 90 days or less that it is still legal to purchase them? She was pretty adiment about the fact that they were now illegal.

    And as for the argument occurring here. Yes it is the governments job to &quot;help&quot; protect its people. That's why we have them and that's why they pass laws.

    But the problem is that these people truly do not know what they are voting on when they vote. It's kinda like a big high school group of kids, they vote on what their friends are voting for. And they have also admitted that they usually don't even read the law they are voting on less much do any research on it. Which is how they banned Ephedra. One person said it was bad and then the snowball rolled until they passed a law banning it all.
  7. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    yup, turned 18 two weeks ago, voted for Kerry yesterday. What has America done? I think the fact that half of this country re-elected George Bush is a big argument against the efficacy of democracy. How can you lose trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, go into a bad war on false pretenses, screw over education, healthcare, and the environment, and win the majority of the vote? Christ.
  8. Agreed. They're saying that a big reason he was re-elected was the strongly Christian base voting on &quot;moral values.&quot; It's hard to believe so many people would place moral values as most important on their list when so many major things like you mentioned have happened the past 4 years. Polls have shown that when people were asked about the economy or if the war in Iraq was a good decision that they overwhelmingly supported Kerry. I guess things like wars and job growth just don't compare with the importance of things like banning gay marriage for some people. It's kind of scary.
  9. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    right. because there are idiots who are just going to elect whoever will let them keep their shotgun and there are more idiots who will simply vote for the candidate that will ban gay marriage or abortions. People don't look at the big picture. The flaw of democracy has always been that the people cannot effectively rule themselves. I'm not saying there's a better way, but I am saying that the people don't know what is best for them.

    It's too bad that being &quot;conservative&quot; is now an excuse for being a homophobe and an elitist war-monger.
  10. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    That's what I was wondering about. If &quot;anarchy&quot; is used in its technical sense of &quot;a society where individuals are free from coercion,&quot; (rather than the more colloquial meaning of &quot;a state of lawlessness or disorder&quot;), it seems to come close to what xahrx was describing.

    I have no idea what the rationale for banning these substances was so I can't address the specific ban but, on the issue of chemical substances such as prohormones, generally, at least, I'm more on the &quot;libertarian-individual responsibility&quot; side.

    The only sensible argument I've heard so far for a ban on substances that give people an &quot;edge&quot; in some competition is this one: If those substances are in fact harmful, one does not want to place others in the position of choosing between effectively competing by taking the substances and risking harm to themselves—which is a bit of a different argument than seeking to prevent one from harming oneself or making the competition &quot;fair.&quot; I am not saying that argument &quot;wins&quot;—just that it seems sensible from a philosphical point of view. I would doubt that the proposed ban took that rationale into account.

    Well, that is, if the &quot;will of the people&quot; and the &quot;majority of the population&quot; hasn't turned into, of course, &quot;the tyranny of the majority.&quot;

    As for the election results, the nature of how people voted and why, and the extent to which they were informed, the less said, the better, in my opinion (although I have no problem discussing my views &quot;offline&quot;).
  11. Agreed there, a hypertrophy forum isn't exactly the place to try and pin down ones political view. But unlike Jeff, don't bother and try to discuss it with me offline either that's a quagmire, like religion, I just refuse to discuss, not that I am anyway near uneducated in the matter, I just have found it to be utterly fruitless. Much like the debate of steroids [​IMG] I'll just suffice to say to those who's political views matched the outcome of the election, congrats. To those who's didn't, better luck next time. [​IMG]
  12. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    Thats not true. Discussion helps reveal flaws in your logic, expand on your ideas, change your perspective etc..

    Wisdom is born from an open mind, and with that comes both internal and external debate.

    bad luck on the election.. but at least Howard doesn't have to remove his lips from Bush's o-ring.. that would have taken too much effort.
  13. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    <span style='color:008800'>Splendidly magnamous</span>, as always, Dan!

    As for the debate about debate, I get both what Dan and Adam are saying. You can learn a lot from discussion but it's all in the way it's done, I think. One has to remain pretty open for it to work and not get too wrapped up in arguing, convincing, or even persuading—sort of &quot;Here's how I see it. How do you see it?&quot; Not exactly what goes on in most discussion boards.

    Note for the other Yanks who are at least as American-centric as I am:

    Took me a little bit to realize the reference is to politically conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard, not some other Howard. (At first I thought &quot;Huh, Howard Dean?&quot;) I'll leave the rest of the quote to your imagination…
  14. Look in my 40 years of existence I have found there are two things, that when they are discussed, lead to nowhere. Now believe me I am as up to debate as the next guy, better yet don't take my word just ask someone like Sonny, but rarely does a discussion on religion or politics change the way anyone believes, they are just too personal and what ends up happening is feelings get hurt, defenses go up and belligerence sets in this in turn enlightens no one, reveals no flaws (at least that are admitted), expands anyone's ideas or conception and certainly doesn't impact wisdom.
  15. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Which is why, Dan (living in <span style='color:RED'>redder than red</span> Texas) and I (in the <span style='color:BLUE'>bluer than blue</span> San Francisco Bay Area), good pals as we are, never discuss politics. Heck, I don't even know if those geographic generalizations apply. (And we don't want to know, do we, Dan?)


    But Adam, you and I can duke it out all you want (offline). [​IMG]
  16. You crazy colorful guy [​IMG] No we don't. :D
  17. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    I dunno, maybe you're right.. but I think I should be right.

    There isnt a point, as you strip back your beliefs to the fundamentals, where you cant support them with positive benefits to yourself and humanity, planet, universe etc..

    I'll elaborate after work.. sorry.

  18. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    That's where we disagree. It's not the government's business to shape me or anyone else into anything it collectively finds more pleasant. Should the government decide all those with blonde hair are a detriment to society and get majority support for such a position, does that make it right for them to impose restrictions on such people? To imprison them? To kill them? All you need to do is look at the various attempts of past governments to do so, the ultimate expression of that ideology is genocide: eliminating all those who for whatever reason the government finds disagreeable in the name of shaping a better society.

    You seem to have an extremely utilitarian view of the role of government. It would be wise to consider that what's best for the most is always in some way worse for a minority. You can't maximally benefit all people, there's this thing called scarcity which applies to everything. And by what right do you or anyone else restrict someone else's freedoms when they haven't tried to restrict yours? For example the prohormone ban. It will likely end up protecting a few from their own stupidity, and most people don't use them or care about them, or for whatever reason find a society without them more pleasant. However, the rights of the people who do want to use them are now forfeited, and what have they done?

    The responsibility for any person who wants to make their life more pleasant or better in some way is theirs personally. If they don't like prohormones that's fine, no one is forcing them to use them. In imposing a ban however they are forcibily removing the option of using from others, others who find the use of such substances makes their lives more pleasant. Whether this desire is understood or agreed with is irrelevant. If these people are doing no harm to others, no one has a right to take their choices away and make their lives less pleasant just for the heck of it.

    The role of the government is to protect you from the aggression of others, and to extend like protection to them from aggression by you. If what you're doing is harming no one else, and your behavior isn't so negligent as to be likely to cause such harm, there's no reason why you should be hassled in any way.

    I don't see how that is. I can't see the logical jump from not allowing the government to arbitrarily control people to anarchism. Anarchism itself is merely the lack of state imposed order, not lack of order itself, but that's another conversation.

    In the end in order to control what another person does without first establishing that their actions are harmful to others you need to assume some superior authority over their person, which translates to ownership. Otherwise the government moves from the role of defender of individual rights to a violater of them in the name of whatever transient and popular cause is currently in fashion.

    Whether or not I agree with what someone says or does, it's not my place to force them to change by making my opinions law, and using the force of the government to change them. The end result of all laws is death. When you make a law you have to be willing to kill someone to enforce it, because that's the end result. Don't believe me? Get a jaywalking ticket and actively resist paying it. When the police come, shut the door on them. If they try and take you to the courts, resist, fight back, see what happens.

    You'll soon see how far the government can and will go to enforce even so petty a law, which is where the standard I wrote about arises from. Since laws are enforced with legally santioned violence they should not be used except to respond in kind to such violence or negligence that would result in violence, for example drunk driving. Drunk driving is likely to cause harm to another person. It's reckless and negligent, so laws against it and their enforcement are justified. Laws against drunkeness in and of itself however do not cross that threshold.

    All I can say at this point is what I've said before, that I hope the government never takes a disliking to something you do that harms no one but for some reason people don't approve of. It invariably happens, keep surrendering your rights and your responsibilities and eventually your ox will get gored by some arbitrary law, and then you'll cry foul.

    But who will listen?
  19. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    I missed this statement on the first pass. So, any law with majority support is automatically wonderful? How can you say no one's freedom is being stript from them, this is a complete contradiction. We are talking about a BAN. You are no longer free to buy the substances, quite obviously some people have had their freedom stript from them. How can you not see this? You honestly think just because a majority makes the decision, it's all fine and dandy? The opinion of 50%+1 of the population equals right, ethical and moral in your mind?
  20. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    This really is a conversation for another place. I did not vote for Bush or Kerry, but succinctly:

    Bush did not lose trillions of dollars, it was only by the most creative of accounting methods, methods that would make Enron look clean as a whistle, that gave birth to our &quot;surplus&quot; of a few years ago. He has spent a lot of money, that's always the case in war time. It's also the case that since Eisenhower every successive administration and congress has swelled the budget beyond it's previous levels.

    Bush did not lose millions of jobs, the president has diddly squat to say about how many people work unless he manages to get public works projects going, and those jobs are by nature not productive. They are funded by taxes which pull capital out of the market. Less capital for investment per person equals stagnating productivity, which leads to a lower demand for labor which leads to fewer jobs, stagnating wages, etc. Recessions are born of the economic policies which preceded them. Do you honestly think Bush took office and all of a sudden out of no where the economy went bust? You have Clinton, or more specifically Greenspan and the Federal Reserve to thank for our current economy. The business cycle, the cycle of booms and busts which flow one from the other, are the result primarily of monetary policy, expansion of bank credit and inflation of the actual money supply. Send distorted signals to the market, you get distorted results.

    As for health care, the environment, education, etc., once more there are decades of policies that have led us to our current state of affairs. Kerry would have done no better, the overall problem which affects all of these areas is too much government involvement. There's a reason why almost all poor people can afford a TV, computer and a car, but few can get a decent education and some can't get health care coverage. There's nothing magical about education and health care that make them somehow immune to market forces that drive the price of everything else down, and government intervention and regulation in these areas goes back over a century.

    Specific to the environment the problem is economic externalities and property rights. Companies don't have to pay for the pollution they release, mostly because judges have interpretted current laws to mean that as long as you pollute just as much as the next guy, you're not breaking the law. Were the government to simply enforce property rights and allow people to own things pollution goes through the floor, because companies have to get your permission to polute and pay for it, or if they do it without asking they have to pay for whatever harm they cause. England is a good example of this kind of system. If your house borders a river, you own that part of the river.

    Regarding property rights, there's once more a reason why forrests and oil and fisheries are all out of whack, but other natural resources like copper, iron, gold seem to be fine. The goverment does not allow ownership in the afore mentioned areas, freedom of the seas and what not. If Exxon finds an oil field they have to suck it dry, or risk someone else coming in and tapping the same field, the same goes for fishing. This pushes the companies' time horizon forward economically, making them concentrate on present exploration and production rather than being able to balance present needs with long term needs and the capital value of the resources, which they could do if they owned the resource.

    You see a similar problem with forrests. Privately owned forrests are gorgeous, and the companies that own them use repletion methods to keep the capital value of the forrest high. The can balance current needs, projected shortages, etc. However the majority of the forrests are worked under a government lease, the government owns them, the companies logging in them have no ownership in the actual resource. Since they could lose the lease to log at the next election cycle because the new politician wants to give it to his brother in law, the companies log like crazy with no consideration for the capital value of the actual forrest because it doesn't matter to them; they don't own it.

    I mean, the biggest polluter in the US is the US government, and this has been so under Democrats and Republicans...

    Overall I can't stand Bush, but fundamentally Kerry is no different. It's just a different name for the same entree.

Share This Page