realsoundjim
Member
read the article bout it, what is the substance they are talking about..... what is the common name of it
new hormone they are makin sched 3 steroid
- Thread starter realsoundjim
- Start date
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
DHEA
AgnosticFront
New member
its not even useful
AgnosticFront
New member
WOAH BUDDY. calm down. I ment its not useful for a young person trying to gain muscle... Sure i bet it helps some old men...
What i was saying is that its not useful for building muscle so there is no lawfull reason to ban it.
What i was saying is that its not useful for building muscle so there is no lawfull reason to ban it.
lifted
Well-known member
Bro I wasn't talking down to ya, I just meant that if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have said that it's useless....didn't mean it to come out that way. 
I see what you mean now, but I've had great results from using it during PCT as did some others. Also, DHEA will help you build muscle due to its partioning effects, helping with cortisol, helping with mood, and reducing fat storeage to name a few. Maybe not directly, but indirectly it does have some great benefits.
I see what you mean now, but I've had great results from using it during PCT as did some others. Also, DHEA will help you build muscle due to its partioning effects, helping with cortisol, helping with mood, and reducing fat storeage to name a few. Maybe not directly, but indirectly it does have some great benefits.
AgnosticFront
New member
I have read that is should not be used durring PCT because it could cause further supression to the HPTA?
dertynasty
$Money$
DO a search on the forum... Just the other day i think LakeMountD posted a thread with a study showing it will not supress you.AgnosticFront said:
Iron Warrior
Registered User
This is getting out of hand. Why would they wan't to piss off another segment of the voting population. This won't even protect any teenagers :icon_lol:
snakebyte05
Board Supporter
How long do we have? I am going to pick up a 100grams or something for future pct then.
CDB
Registered User
My guess would be the most informed person in congress couldn't indentify the chemical structure of a sex hormone if they saw a diagram of it, much less tell you it's basic functions in the body. Why would they ban it? Because they can. It's that simple. They create crime and then arrest people and brag about their efforts in stopping crime and get reelected. Few if any people really give a **** whether or not what was criminalized needed to be the subject of legal restrictions. Half the idiots out there, some doctors even, think creatine is a steroid.punta said:
Author L. Rea
Board Sponsor
E-mail and write your senators and congressmen. It seems that LEF is already in on this one to stand up and be heard. I know it seems to be a useless waste of time. But people spoke out enough against prohibition and overturned that idiocy as well.
I spoke out recently in several mainstream book and mag interviews including Men's Fitness and Will Carrol's new book Juice. (I hate to do interviews) I would appreciate some support, if possible, from each of the lads here. Realize that fact that if DHEA is banned without notice then creatine and protein will soon follow. Doubt that? Look at the supplement ban history for Italy, Australia and Canada.
You only need to be 18 to kill yourself with cigarettes and 21 for alcohol. But you go to prison for improving your body and mind. Sad times we are slipping quitely into. Very sad.
I spoke out recently in several mainstream book and mag interviews including Men's Fitness and Will Carrol's new book Juice. (I hate to do interviews) I would appreciate some support, if possible, from each of the lads here. Realize that fact that if DHEA is banned without notice then creatine and protein will soon follow. Doubt that? Look at the supplement ban history for Italy, Australia and Canada.
You only need to be 18 to kill yourself with cigarettes and 21 for alcohol. But you go to prison for improving your body and mind. Sad times we are slipping quitely into. Very sad.
dertynasty
$Money$
Uh yeah hello.... Tobacco and Alcohol industry is where the goverment gets most of its money. They are the 2 biggest chains on which government makes its money from taxes on in the US. sad, but trueAuthor L. Rea said:
BoxingFool01
New member
Don't worry next up the governments will ban vitamins. Wasn't there some swimmer who flagged a drug test and blamed it all on his multi vitamin? What will they come up with next? :think:
davisville64
Member
BoxingFool01 said:
If they ban anything like vitamins, protein, creatine, etc., you can expect to see me in Canada. Not just so I can have access to the "drugs", but because a system that bans stuff like that is messed up.
davisville64
Member
off topic
This is slightly off topic, but it got me thinking. I am probably just some 17 year old that doesnt know much about the world, but...
How does the DEA justify making ANY drug illigal? I could see smoking because of second hand smoke, but here in RI they already made it illigal to smoke in public places. Crack, if my neighbor does crack, how does it effect me? Steroids, heroine, pot, lsd, all the same stuff. (for the record, i have never done any drug, I just stand for what I think is right. I'm not black, but I dont think blacks should have there own schools. Same idea.)
Lets look at the pros and cons
Cons- It effects the user. Well, they chose to do it, so the hole they are in was dug by themselves. How does this effect the general public...
. Maybe the rise in healtcare cost.
Pros- We get rid of gang violence. Gang violence related to drugs kills more people than the actual drugs do. The jails wouldn't be as overcowded. Sure some people would wind up there for what they did while on drugs, but all those who got caught with dealing/possession wouldn't be in there. The gov. would also make a lot of money off it if you could only buy it from a pharmacy, and they put a tax on them. Imagine, we would be able to feed so many starving children, but we have to keep drugs illigal.
This is slightly off topic, but it got me thinking. I am probably just some 17 year old that doesnt know much about the world, but...
How does the DEA justify making ANY drug illigal? I could see smoking because of second hand smoke, but here in RI they already made it illigal to smoke in public places. Crack, if my neighbor does crack, how does it effect me? Steroids, heroine, pot, lsd, all the same stuff. (for the record, i have never done any drug, I just stand for what I think is right. I'm not black, but I dont think blacks should have there own schools. Same idea.)
Lets look at the pros and cons
Cons- It effects the user. Well, they chose to do it, so the hole they are in was dug by themselves. How does this effect the general public...
. Maybe the rise in healtcare cost. Pros- We get rid of gang violence. Gang violence related to drugs kills more people than the actual drugs do. The jails wouldn't be as overcowded. Sure some people would wind up there for what they did while on drugs, but all those who got caught with dealing/possession wouldn't be in there. The gov. would also make a lot of money off it if you could only buy it from a pharmacy, and they put a tax on them. Imagine, we would be able to feed so many starving children, but we have to keep drugs illigal.
GTOman
Board Supporter
davisville64 said:
Up here in Canada things work the other way around. A supplement must be considered 'safe' by Health Canada before it can be sold to the public. That's why we don't usually have supplements pulled of the shelf. Once cleared, there has to be substantial proof that the substance is harmfull in order for it to be pulled.The drawback is that it takes much longer for supplements to be analysed and considered 'safe' by Health Canada, for example 6-OXO and Yohimbe were just cleared to be sold in Canada this year. Ephidrine was never banned here there were just restrictions on how it could be sold. I've seen DHEA up here at health food stores so it must be cool with Health Canada.
TINYTOAD
Active member
Let’s face it, alcohol is a terrible drug. Look at all the people that die from it, are harmed by it, or get killed by it each year. Alcohol is a big factor in traffic accidents, the abuse of children, the abuse of women, and in murders. Look at all the lives that have been devastated by alcohol. You’d think it would be illegal, just like heroin, but no. Anybody over 21 can go down to the local store, and buy it. Why? Because this is America.
Tobacco is horribly addictive. People who have been able to quit heroin even find it difficult to stop smoking. If you smoke, it’s like being 100 pounds overweight. It’s really hard on your heart, and it takes years off of your life. It’s really bad stuff. But just like alcohol, anybody can go down to the store and get themselves a pack of cigarettes. Why? Because this is a free country.
Cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are also really nasty, but are they any worse than alcohol?
The very fact that these substances are illegal, when tobacco and alcohol are not, is hipocracy! Yet call for their re-legalization, and you’ll be labeled as a nut! You’ll face the same uphill battle, when you call for the re-legalization of anabolic steroids.
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.
The only way to turn this around, is to get out and vote for people who believe in the constitution and won’t keep legislating your rights away. Until the next election, write you senators and congressmen, and let them know how you feel. Otherwise, your silence is tacit approval of the ban.
Tobacco is horribly addictive. People who have been able to quit heroin even find it difficult to stop smoking. If you smoke, it’s like being 100 pounds overweight. It’s really hard on your heart, and it takes years off of your life. It’s really bad stuff. But just like alcohol, anybody can go down to the store and get themselves a pack of cigarettes. Why? Because this is a free country.
Cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are also really nasty, but are they any worse than alcohol?
The very fact that these substances are illegal, when tobacco and alcohol are not, is hipocracy! Yet call for their re-legalization, and you’ll be labeled as a nut! You’ll face the same uphill battle, when you call for the re-legalization of anabolic steroids.
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.
The only way to turn this around, is to get out and vote for people who believe in the constitution and won’t keep legislating your rights away. Until the next election, write you senators and congressmen, and let them know how you feel. Otherwise, your silence is tacit approval of the ban.
davisville64
Member
cable626 said:
You heard it here first...
In 2010, there will be a quota on how much protein you can have in your diet.
Cogar
Member
Actually, banning vitamins is not as crazy as it sounds. I believe the government is in tight enough with the pharmaceutical companies that they would like to make everything, including vitamins, prescription-only products. Even the skinny tofu-eaters are concerned about government encroachment on herbs and vitamins. They also see the writing on the wall.BoxingFool01 said:
StuckeyBoss
New member
I already emailed all my senators and my local representative to vote against the bill that is supposed to ban DHEA. I urge everyone on this board to do it if they havent already.
UnicronSpawn
Active member
ÔINYTOAD said:
Well said. I agree. But I fear that we will not be able to vote for someone who truly believes in civil liberties, because those politicians wont even be on the ballots. Im sorry to seem pessimistic, but I really truly (and regretfully) believe this to be the case. Even if someone like that were able to rise through the ranks within the next few years, its possible they might change their stance based on peer pressure. Theese would be savior's of freedom are afraid to stick there neck out and go against the grain of the popular school of thought of the time, even if it compromises their own principals to a degree. 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. So supporters of civil liberties are likely to "cut their losses" so to speak, in order to maintain credibility with vhe masses who have extreme predjudices against anything even distantly related to anabonic androgenic steroids. Even the word steroid has become like a bad word among the underinformed public, invoking all kinds of negative images. And even though DHEA is two enzymatic conversion processes' away from anything remotely anabolic the anti supplement zealots are inexplicably in the drivers seat. It IS hypocricy. In fact it is hypocricy of the highest order, but thanks to mass distribution of misinformation and half baked accounts of non fact orientated speculation and opinions, the number of people against the hypocricy is woefully insufficient. I allready e-mailed two senators, but I fear the worst.
Qwerty
Board Supporter
Vote libertarian. The only way these issues stand a chance of turning out the right way is if the libertarian movement continues to grow and gets a foothold on the national scene. Republicans and Democrats are not your representatives. The sooner people realize this and realize that voting for a third party isn't "wasting a vote", the sooner this country will be able to make a change for the better. If the ignorant people can't get over that horrible stigma, we deserve the disgusting two party system that we continuely put in power.UnicronSpawn said:
CrAzyOttER
Banned
i fucking hate washington! what i eat dont make you **** so stay out of my fucking life and my gym bag!!!!!!!!!!!! and thats all i have to say about that
The Experiment
Board Supporter
The problem at hand here isn't the politicians but the people who elect them. 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. They decided they did not want these substances to be purchased and written to their Representatives and Senators.
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. 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
Its #4. Then she confronts her son and a big argument ensues. She think its from the steroids and anything he does wrong (no matter how little or big) is because of it. Then she'll tell her friends and relatives. Then they'll tell their friends. Then one and more call up or write their representatives and demand something be done about it. Then it gets brought up and then banned.
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. 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
Its #4. Then she confronts her son and a big argument ensues. She think its from the steroids and anything he does wrong (no matter how little or big) is because of it. Then she'll tell her friends and relatives. Then they'll tell their friends. Then one and more call up or write their representatives and demand something be done about it. Then it gets brought up and then banned.
builtolast
Member
TINYTOAD said:
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.
Iron Warrior
Registered User
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.The Experiment said:
The Experiment
Board Supporter
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 bullshit.
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.
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 bullshit.
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.
Brooklyn
Member
Now THAT is funny. LOL
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 rivalries, we'll all lose out. The PH bill was just the beginning.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Matthew D
Well-known member
The Experiment said:
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 Invalid Link Removed
So to me it is not a tool, not even close
farmer
New member
Majority rule, yes. But read on.builtolast said:
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.builtolast said:
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.builtolast said:
INFOHAZARD
Member
"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
------------------
Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link RemovedInvalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
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.
Invalid Link Removed
----------------------
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Invalid Link Removed
----------------------------
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.
Invalid Link Removed
-----------------------------
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
Invalid Link Removed
---------------------------
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
Invalid Link Removed
-------------------------------
"Invalid Link Removed"
-James Madison
--------------------
No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.
Invalid Link Removed
--------------------------------
INFOHAZARD
------------------
"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
------------------
Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link RemovedInvalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
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.
Invalid Link Removed
----------------------
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Invalid Link Removed
----------------------------
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.
Invalid Link Removed
-----------------------------
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
Invalid Link Removed
---------------------------
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
Invalid Link Removed
-------------------------------
"Invalid Link Removed"
-James Madison
--------------------
No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.
Invalid Link Removed
--------------------------------
INFOHAZARD
builtolast said:
The Experiment
Board Supporter
Actually, I did have to live with an alcoholic.Matthew D said:
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.
davisville64
Member
They know it has to do with a healthy lifestyle. That makes them angry :rant:punta said: