Senate seeks to outlaw DHEA
- 09-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Senate seeks to outlaw DHEA
Senate seeks to outlaw DHEA
Legislation was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate--and is expected in the house--that would remove the safe and beneficial dietary supplement DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) from the marketplace by re-classifying it as an anabolic steroid.
This is currently an internal Senate bill that can be at any time added as an amendment to another bill.
Contact the bill sponsers via email and let them know that DHEA is used by millions of people to improve their health by reversing age-related hormonal deficiencies and that they should concentrate their time & efforts elsewhere.
Overview & Contact bill sponsors (Rep. Woolsey, Rep. Pelosi, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer)
- 09-09-2005, 02:53 PM
- 09-09-2005, 02:56 PM
09-09-2005, 03:42 PM
09-09-2005, 03:58 PM
I've really just given up on our legal system. I got 3 years probation, 750 dollar fine, 1 year restricted license (work only), and 10 narcotics anonymous meetings for possession of ONE empty syringe. What's wrong with our country today?
09-09-2005, 04:04 PM
09-09-2005, 04:10 PM
Great state of California. They were going to suspend my license but my attorney talked the judge into a restricted license for a guilty plea.Originally Posted by SOWarrior
09-09-2005, 04:22 PM
It's only the beginning, guys. They'll tighten every screw they can find, more and more and more, and spread propaganda in the press how this is for everyone's best interests. The people buy everything you now throw at them on TV and newspapers. DHEA is a steroid, it is evil.
09-09-2005, 04:27 PM
I know one thing, because DHEA use is prominent among older people and seniors, those senators might have a hell of a time passing this law as will others because older people tend to make up more of their constituency and tend to vote en masse. So should be interesting to see how this pans out.
09-09-2005, 05:16 PM
I hope everyone has sent the email to their senator. I already have and receive a letter back stating he supports the bill.
09-09-2005, 05:57 PM
09-09-2005, 07:46 PM
They wont listen. Bodybuilders arent exactly the biggest chunk of the electorate, and its not like we fund their campaigns. Thats all they care about, votes and money.
Sad day for Democrats. Though I prefer more libertarian leaning Democrats. Live and let live.
09-10-2005, 01:25 AM
DHEA is huge with old people, they do listen to the over 50 crowd.Originally Posted by iwannagetbig
09-10-2005, 10:12 AM
I sent one to my senator about a month and a half ago. No answer, but im not surprised.Originally Posted by 50joe
09-10-2005, 03:13 PM
I sent a letter to my Congresswoman and she said that she would oppose any legislation such as this, but I'll wait and see what she does before I throw my support behind her.
09-11-2005, 06:41 PM
This thing with the gov. and their hard on with steroids/prohormones is getting boring. Do they have more important things to worry about? All I say to them is
09-11-2005, 07:15 PM
09-11-2005, 07:58 PM
I wrote to my state congress (people) and they support it as well. Got a form letter telling my how bad DHEA is for you. I was going to respond but since it was a form letter that came flying back at me I figure that an intern is handling the e-mail.
09-11-2005, 10:31 PM
hey sja, post the letter (as an attachment if it's big) so we can all see what they wrote about DHEA if you don't mind.
And Brennon, that's just ridiculous.
09-12-2005, 01:47 AM
Hmmm, our education system needs some help, the people in New Orleans need a lot of help, the cost of living is spiraling out of control but these people are worried about DHEA, it's freaking DHEA, not Halotestin for Christ's sake
09-13-2005, 12:08 AM
09-13-2005, 08:01 AM
That is the problem. If a bodybuilders group organized, it would have significant ability to represent its members, much like a union.Originally Posted by iwannagetbig
09-13-2005, 03:47 PM
Dear Mr. Dean:
Thank you for contacting me regarding dietary supplements. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know, I co-sponsored the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) because I believe in balancing consumer access with safety. DSHEA created an Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health and addressed important issues such as ingredient and nutrition labeling, supplement definitions, safety, supplement claims, and good manufacturing practices.
While I recognize the need to ensure consumer safety, I believe we should not impose unreasonable restrictions on dietary supplements. DSHEA states that "although the Federal Government should take swift action against products that are unsafe or adulterated, the Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers."
Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the issue of dietary supplements again come before the Senate.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future about this or any other issue.
Senator Barbara Boxer
09-13-2005, 05:47 PM
I got a response from one of my States (OK) Senators. I was surprised that he does not support the DHEA banning effort. By the way, he is/was a physician. Here is the letter he sent if anyone is interested.
September 12, 2005
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73150
Thank you for your recent e-mail expressing your concerns
1137. This bill would change the classification of the dietary
Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) from a supplement to an anabolic
As a practicing physician, I understand the benefits provided
dietary supplements. I myself take Citracal D and folic acid.
must be aware that these supplements have not been evaluated or
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat or prevent
problems. Numerous studies, however, have indicated the health
of dietary supplements. Studies have also identified adverse
for some patients from certain supplements. It is, therefore,
important that you and other patients taking dietary
with a physician to prevent adverse effects, especially if you
Epidemiological data indicate an inverse relationship between
and its active metabolite, DHEA sulfate (DHEAS), levels and the
of cancer, cardiovascular disease (in men only), Alzheimer's
other age-related disorders, immune function, and progression
infection. Animal (primarily rodent) studies have suggested
beneficial effects of DHEA, including improved immune function
and prevention of atherosclerosis, cancer, diabetes, and
obesity. Many of
the benefits seen in animal studies have yet to be shown in
Clinical data suggest that DHEA may have a role in hormone
therapy in patients with low endogenous DHEA and DHEAS levels
chronic diseases, adrenal exhaustion, corticosteroid therapy,
advancing age. However, as a potent steroid precursor, DHEA can
significantly increase androgen levels in women and may enhance
progression of estrogen and testosterone-sensitive cancers.
Supplementation with DHEA should never be undertaken without
medical supervision. The long-term effects of DHEA
Last year, Congress enacted the Anabolic Steroid Control Act
This legislation placed a number of steroid precursors on the
Substances List because these products were being marketed as
builders and performance enhancers, and had the potential to
lead to the
same adverse effects as synthetic prescription steroids. DHEA
specifically and intentionally omitted from that list.
the Drug Enforcement Agency's authority to schedule DHEA in the
significant abuse of these products occurs.
At this time, based upon the scientific data that I have
reviewed, I do
not believe that DHEA need be placed on the Controlled
Substances List. I
will continue to review the scientific literature and monitor
should any legislation come before the Senate for a vote that
For more information on DHEA, you may call the National
Health Hotline number: 1-800-222-2225.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your views. Feel
contact me in the future if I can be of any assistance to you.
United States Senator
09-13-2005, 07:42 PM
I contacted senator John Kerry here in massachusettes, a while back. I dont have his return e-mail anymore, but from what I remember, he seemed not to blatantly say he would oppose it or support it to an extreme degree either way, he more or less said he would take my reccomendations under serious consideration. It seemed like a positive response, but it was difficult to tell how strongly he would oppose the bill.
Personally, I've always felt that the war on drugs in general has been one of the greater tragic blunders of American society. A large group of people lead on by half-baked subjective slander and lible can never have a positive result as far a the greater good of the whole is concerned. The price we pay for "equal oppurtunity" and or "free enterprise" is that corruption and greed will always be rewarded, and there will always be someone willing and able to manipulate public "knowledge" (opinion) to fit their agenda. If there is money or power to be had, someone will "capitalize" even if it means trampling on everyone else. (either with or without the ones being trampled on realizing that thats whats happening.)
Wish I had the answer. But until enough people unite we are all in the same boat. And that would take a massive epiphany on a national scale.
09-14-2005, 09:55 AM
Wow..It's so shocking that Kerry wouldn't say he was either for the bill or against it. That idiot can't take a stand on anything.
09-14-2005, 06:09 PM
this is something i just cant understand at my young and tender age. why are 60+ year old people telling us what we can and cannot put into our bodies? I dont care if they are harmful, what happend to personal responsibility? Cigarettes kill how many people a year? I fully support anyone who wants to puff away on a cigarette it doesnt make a godman difference to me. If someone is at a party and wants to do a line why is it the governments responsibility to protect that person? i just dont get it. last time i checked the war on drugs had failed miserably and any highschool kid can get a gram of pot in 20 mins. leave our **** alone we are not asking for your help big brother.
09-15-2005, 10:12 AM
I sent a email to my senator about 2 months ago when this debate initially surfaced, no response though. I think its a shame though, people can destroy their body with alcohol and cigarettes but God forbid that we consume DHEA.
09-16-2005, 01:33 AM
09-16-2005, 01:40 PM
I definitely agree with the need for personal responsibility. Unfortunately, there are too many that feel that they have the "right" to not be responsible.Originally Posted by jomi822
I also agree that cigarettes (and even alcohol) are ignored when it comes to the government protecting our health, but hey, it brings in a LOT of tax revenue.Originally Posted by jomi822
As far as being the government's responsibility to protect our health, it is needed to a certain extent. That person that wants to ignore personal responsibility and cause injury to themself or others will then use free/assisted health care, which is provided by - Your tax dollars!
I guess whether directly or indirectly, because of the lack of personal responsibility from a portion of the population, big brother's help becomes necessary (to a certain extent ).Originally Posted by jomi822
09-16-2005, 02:12 PM
the other part of it is if a kid drinks too much and dies, his parents will sue everyone they can think of. Again no personal responsibility.
09-16-2005, 03:47 PM
That is because society, through the abuse of our legal system by greedy personal injury lawyers, has taught people they are not personally responsible for anything. It is ALWAYS someone elses fault, and we can take it to court and get a huge settlement. People have been conditioned to believe they are not wrong, after all they are perfect, so it must be someone's fault. So, it is McDonalds fault I'm fat (they sold me the fattening food cheap), it is the governments fault I'm lazy (they gave me the free welfare/unemployment money), and its the schools fault I'm dumb (they tried to educate me for free). It's NEVER my fault - and someone always is to blame - so you MUST fix it for me. This is the new American way. If you argue with me, I'll sue!Originally Posted by Mass_69
The government needs to protect it's citizens from outside forces, but there is no need to protect us from ourselves. The government needs to get out of the business of providing social services and interfering in commerce and focus on the job at hand - following the mandates of the Constitution. If anything, the tragedy that has unfolded on the Gulf Coast with the federal response to Katrina should give us all a wake up call. The government is NOT working the way it is supposed to. We are not prepared to face any kind of major terrorist attack, there are no plans of evacuation for major cities, and the government seems to have learned very little from the 9/11 attacks. Is it the governments responsibility to protect the health of its citizens? To some extent, but as long as citizens know what they are putting in their bodies (the meat is inspected, the bottle contains what it says it is, the cigarrettes have ingredients listed), that is where the government involvement should end. It is my personal choice on what to do with my body, not the governments. In the US, the government is supposed to exist for the people - we shouldn't have to work and pay taxes so the government can rule us however it (and the various lobbyists) pleases.As far as being the government's responsibility to protect our health, it is needed to a certain extent. That person that wants to ignore personal responsibility and cause injury to themself or others will then use free/assisted health care, which is provided by - Your tax dollars!
I guess whether directly or indirectly, because of the lack of personal responsibility from a portion of the population, big brother's help becomes necessary (to a certain extent ).
That being said, if DHEA is not outlawed, it has nothing to do with anything we have said or done. It rests solely with the huge AARP lobby that has a huge amount of control in Washington. The fact that one group of people has that much control over the fate of the rest of us is scary to me, but this is a fact of life.
09-16-2005, 04:40 PM
It would take irresponsibility on a predigious scale for anyone to end up needing serious expensive medical attetention for using DHEA. Its health benifits are well documented, especially in older men. A young person would have to be dosing in virtually uncharted territory to cause that serious of damage. It would require a level of abuse that could make anything dangerous. (including water). The government is totally unjustified on this. They will be harming more people with the lack of availability of DHEA then they are protecting. So the notion that banning DHEA will prevent spending of tax dollars on medical expenses is not applicable. It will cause a need for more medical expenses because people who use it to prevent heart disease, osteoporosis and other conditions will not have easy access. Besides, the medical community benifits financially from sick people more than well people. And alot of people pay for medical insurance themselves, so the insurance companies are fat and happy, and the big-pharm companies dont have competition from supp companies. Politicians push legislation for more votes and "campaign donations" from the benificiaries of the legislations they support. So why should they mind investing a few more tax dollars to indirectly fund their cause? Those people not paying for their own health insurance get state help and the insurance companies get paid regardless. Its a whole ring and saving tax dollars for medical bills cant possibly be a true motive for the DHEA ban.
09-17-2005, 03:27 PM
09-17-2005, 03:53 PM
You missed my point completely. Actually, the line I quoted when I referred to taxes and healthcare costs talked about snorting a line (of cocaine), not taking DHEA. I never said taking DHEA will cost health problems or spend our tax money. I was simply offering an angle of why the government attempts to "protect" citizens from what they ingest, whether it's beef, water, or cocaine.Originally Posted by UnicronSpawn
09-17-2005, 04:00 PM
crackdown on DHEA is yet another PERFECT example of the idiocy/inefficiency of large gov't bureaucracies. DHEA??? And before that, Androstenedione!!! No clue!!! About as silly as waiting on line at the DMV--the other shining example which comes to mind.
09-17-2005, 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by Mass_69
You were speaking generally then? Not suggesting that that was the reasoning behind this particular ban? Even if you hadnt been, my opinions are just that. And not intended to flame/disrespect anyone elses opinion. I thought you were offering that theory as justification of this particular attempt of the government to "protect us from ourselves". But I'm begginging to be skeptical as to if the health insurance from tax money pitch is really a motive behind any of the bans of anything. Because if the medical community and pharm corporations benifit from the tax funded insurance money that pays for theese abusers to be treated, then there must be another angle at wich either the medical comm./ big pharm or insurance companies or legislators would loose money by keeping something legal and cheap. So where is their angle? (legislators) If its not to either look good to the public (for more votes) or to make more profit for either themselves or for the corporations supporting them then they wouldnt be doing it. (That applies to just about anything and everything they do). So knowing that tax money paid to insurance paid to medical and pharmecuetical establishments is going somewhere that benifits them, why should that be a detterent? and what is the real motive? It seems like politicians create issues that arent even a real problem and put it in the heads of voters that it is a real problem just to have a topic in wich they look good on their position and attract votes. And to much info is hidden from public view for enough voters to be any the wiser.
Similar Forum Threads
- By shimshadee in forum AnabolicsReplies: 9Last Post: 04-10-2008, 02:18 AM
- By Gutterpump in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 17Last Post: 10-12-2007, 03:01 PM
- By BigAk in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 35Last Post: 02-20-2007, 12:12 PM
- By yeahright in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 0Last Post: 06-10-2006, 10:45 PM
- By Sheesh in forum General ChatReplies: 23Last Post: 05-17-2003, 11:32 PM