new hormone they are makin sched 3 steroid

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Registered User
    builtolast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    27
    Posts
    169
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TINYTOAD
    America is supposed to be the land of the free, yet we keep electing leaders that keep taking our freedoms away. As a wise man once said, "those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither". Similarly, those who sacrifice individual liberty for societal good deserve neither.

    Our nation, and its establishing document, the Constitution, were born out of a struggle to obtain greater individual liberty. Most people had come to America seeking greater freedom, only to see a self-centered monarchy eroding it away.

    After winning independence from
    England, our founding fathers wrote our constitution to ensure that the notion of inalienable rights held by the people would not be similarly eroded in the future. The Federal government should under no circumstances infringe upon the rights of the people, even when "the ends" were supposedly a greater social good.
    Ok, first off I support the arguement for legalized steroids, prohormones, etc. but some of these statements are non-sense. To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule. In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.

    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc.

    Basically, I'd stick with the arguement on steroids alone, and not all the other rights people would like to have. That's too bold of a statement, as many rights people want shouldn't be had period.

  2. Registered User
    Iron Warrior's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  265 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,329
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    As for alcohol and tobacco, just because they are legal doesn't mean they are safe. The government makes a killing collecting taxes for these substances. They also force the companies to make advertisements to make sure they make responsible decisions. How many of these supplement companies today can put round the clock advertisements advising the safety usages of steroids? None
    You're right on the advertisement issue. Supplement companies can be their own worst enemy, many will make outrageous BS claims and bicker with each to the point where personal insults are thrown at each other.
  3. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    296
    Answers
    0

    Yeah, I strongly disagreed with TINYTOAD's post. Justifying one bad thing for another is wrong. Alcohol also is pretty much a tool used for people to express themselves. Then if they **** up royally, they can say, "I was drunk." Think of all the times girls woke up to some ugly dude (or guy with an ugly chick) where they can get a free pass with the drunk excuse. Happens all the time. The only thing I see wrong with alcohol is drunk driving accidents.

    As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Lets face it, most of the public (not just Americans) are impulsive and probably can't even handle a light cycle, let alone any cycle. Thats why they were banned. It was seeping too much into areas where it shouldn't have belonged.

    Supplement companies are their own worst enemy. They make outrageous claims and then their CEOs whine about how they're being treated unfairly. Well, its a no brainer that the government will have raised eyebrows about a claim how X Corp's new supplement is 1000% more anabolic than steroids. The DSHEA gave a lot of leeway and is being heavily abused. While I think the outlandish claims deserve to be attacked, these measures are screwing the small percentage of companies that are legitimate, trying to make good products without the bull****.

    The anti-supplement wars are here to stay and will be for a while. Its best to support the USFA and like causes and keep doing what we're doing. Although I think it will be hilarious to stockpile kilos of CEE.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Answers
    0

    Lightbulb


    Also, when supplement companies advertise a product and state, "ITS 5000% ANABOLIC THAN STEROIDS" on the bottle and a mother reads it, what is she going to think:

    1) Oh wow, I hope Billy is using proper PCT
    2) Gee, I'll just forget I read that advertisement and hope everything is ok
    3) I better spend tens of hours of research finding out if it is an appropriate product
    4) Holy ****, my son is taking steroids
    Now THAT is funny. LOL

    When talking to my Senator (Grassley R-IA), he stated that for the PH ban, letters came pouring in demanding he ban them and when he was one of the people that co-signed the bill, he received lots of "Thank you" letters from people for banning the substances. So as much as we'd all like to think the big bad Pfizer was responsible, the responsibility comes from the people.
    So where is the supplement lobby? Why is it that every idiot group that wants to ban something or take something away can get organized easily yet those who want something good to stay legal are absent when it counts? If the industry doesn't band together soon and get over their petty *****ries, we'll all lose out. The PH bill was just the beginning.

    To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule. In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.
    That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Was that something you heard on Fox News or something? No one should have to give up personal freedom if it does not infringe upon the freedoms of others. As long as you don't hurt anyone or destroy any property, what business is it of the government what you do in your free time? And what purpose would such laws serve? Who would they protect?

    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc
    Uh, we have laws to protect people from other people. We should have laws to protect us from those that would intend to do us harm, including greedy food and/or supplement companies. However, the burden of evidence was legally not even enough to ban ephedra, let alone androstenediol. Regulation is key, not deprivation.

    As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Lets face it, most of the public (not just Americans) are impulsive and probably can't even handle a light cycle, let alone any cycle. Thats why they were banned. It was seeping too much into areas where it shouldn't have belonged.
    Sounds like a regulation issue, not a deprivation issue. Alcohol and cigarettes seep too much into areas they don't belong. Did a ban on alcohol work? Do I see the FDA banning cigarettes when there is absolutely no upside to them and millions die from conditions related to their use? So it's ok for people to kill themselves with cigarettes and alcohol, but if they die from being too stupid to properly use prohormones that's somehow worse? Or the fault of the companies involved? I didn't see "Joe Andro" on a bottle of 4-AD. The problem is that we are moving toward a society in which the weak are extolled over the strong. This is great for a consumer-driven capitalist economy, but where will we be when a major war occurs? S.O.L., and you know what that means.

    Supplement companies are their own worst enemy. They make outrageous claims and then their CEOs whine about how they're being treated unfairly. Well, its a no brainer that the government will have raised eyebrows about a claim how X Corp's new supplement is 1000% more anabolic than steroids.
    So you think I should return that Muscle Tech?

    Seriously, regulation, not deprivation. Say it over and over in your head until it sticks. Regulation, not deprivation. False advertising is false advertising. If Pfizer can't have guys looking too happy that they are on Viagra in their commercials, then supplement companies should not be allowed to make outlandish claims without actual, credible scientific evidence. For example, "Tribulus-Z will make you bigger than Ronnie Coleman in just 3 weeks!" Regulation, not deprivation.
  5. Running with the Big Boys
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,019
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by UnicronSpawn
    ..... I mean look at the address Arnold gave to the antendees of the Arnold classic. He was supposed to be our voice. But he has to conform to a degree to the popular (though less then enlightened) point of view the country has on AAS. Sure he's trying to keep other supplements legal, but I believe that is partly because there is less negative stigma around non -steroidal compounds, and subsequently would not shed an unfavorable light on him to support them...
    Arnold will never be the voice for "us" he is now trying to get elected and if that means throwing us to the proverbal wolves, then so be it in his mind...
  6. Running with the Big Boys
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,019
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Yeah, I strongly disagreed with TINYTOAD's post. Justifying one bad thing for another is wrong. Alcohol also is pretty much a tool used for people to express themselves...The only thing I see wrong with alcohol is drunk driving accidents.
    I guess you have never had to live with an alcoholic? Because if you had you would not even the above statements. I really can't find any redeeming qualities about alcohol. Many of the studies that came out with some small benefit to the use of alcohol have been proven to be inncorrect http://alcoholism.about.com/library/bluc-junerussel.htm
    So to me it is not a tool, not even close
  7. Registered User
    farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    90
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    Ok, first off I support the arguement for legalized steroids, prohormones, etc. but some of these statements are non-sense. To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule.
    Majority rule, yes. But read on.

    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.
    Only those allowed by the U.S.? Never our rights in the first place? You gotta be kidding me. The constitution guarantees us the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as long as we don't infringe upon someone else's right to the same things. The government is in place to insure that the constitution is upheld and protected, not to "allow" me certain rights. The constitution already does that, which is why the regulation of steroids and several other things appears to be unconstitutional to me. But the gov. justifies it by creating the FDA and telling the public that they are protecting us. We don't need the gov to be our parents.

    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc.
    Basically, I'd stick with the arguement on steroids alone, and not all the other rights people would like to have. That's too bold of a statement, as many rights people want shouldn't be had period.
    That is just hysterical. I do understand that some things have to be controlled for the good of the population. Antibiotics, for instance, can cause disease causing organism to become resistant if they are overused (which they are anyway by our so knowledgeable doctors). This leaves us with a disease that might have had a treatment, but now we don't because the treatment was abused. If this scenario is what you are refering to when you say they have to infringe on our rights, then I apologize. But in your post, you sound just like one of them. "We'll allow the things we like and ban the things we don't care about". I'm sure you have good intentions but you have some very inaccurate ideas about how our forefathers meant for this country to be.
  8. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    "The mother principle [is] that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:33

    ------------------

    "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

    ------------------

    All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
    Benjamin Franklin ----------------------

    Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
    -Benjamin Franklin

    ------------------------------------------

    Benjamin Franklin, before the Constitutional Convention, (June 2, 1787):
    "... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever ..."
    -Benjamin Franklin

    -----------------------------------

    All men having power ought to be mistrusted.
    James Madison

    ----------------------

    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    James Madison

    ----------------------------

    It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
    James Madison

    -----------------------------

    The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
    James Madison

    ---------------------------

    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
    James Madison

    -------------------------------

    "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
    -James Madison

    --------------------
    No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.
    John Jay
    --------------------------------

    INFOHAZARD




    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    Ok, first off I support the arguement for legalized steroids, prohormones, etc. but some of these statements are non-sense. To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule. In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.

    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc.

    Basically, I'd stick with the arguement on steroids alone, and not all the other rights people would like to have. That's too bold of a statement, as many rights people want shouldn't be had period.
  9. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    296
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    I guess you have never had to live with an alcoholic? Because if you had you would not even the above statements. I really can't find any redeeming qualities about alcohol. Many of the studies that came out with some small benefit to the use of alcohol have been proven to be inncorrect http://alcoholism.about.com/library/bluc-junerussel.htm
    So to me it is not a tool, not even close
    Actually, I did have to live with an alcoholic.

    So where is the supplement lobby?
    There is no supplement lobby because there's no unified front. There are lots of companies abusing the leniency that DSHEA provides. There was no corporate responsibility as well. GNC and other retailers (online and offline) did not put age restrictions on their products. They could have taken the initiative but they didn't. They'd rather make a few quick bucks and now its banned. The only reason why PHs were discovered was because a lot of teenagers were using them, the same market that angered the people over steroids.

    The same thing will happen to the post PH products: Superdrol, Ergomax, MAX LMG, etc. Next control act could be a lot more restrictive. But a buck is a buck to most companies and would rather make $10 million in profit quickly selling to whomever than make $50 million over 10 years by restricting the age. I predict these post PH supplements will be banned in 2-3 years. They're just waiting for the right ESPN story to break through to push the new restrictions.
  10. Registered User
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by punta
    I personally dont think it will be added, does congress even know what DHEA does?
    They know it has to do with a healthy lifestyle. That makes them angry
  11. Registered User
    julius kelp's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  208 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    765
    Answers
    0

    perspective. these things will not be changed in a day, or a week, or a year. we will have to get there incrementally.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. The Reference Point Threads - what they are for
    By Strateg0s in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-27-2005, 02:43 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 04:30 PM
  3. New hormone soon?
    By SJA in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-08-2004, 06:03 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 09:02 PM
  5. Germany can kiss that ass they are so aptly displaying...
    By windwords7 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-06-2003, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in