The PH Ban is for real now
- 04-02-2004, 11:54 AM
- 04-02-2004, 12:06 PM
AMEN!!! You are so right...I actually had a congressman email me back from the BB.com quick reply link, and he said he got my email but the message was blank (due to technical difficulties), and he wanted me to resend the message. So there you have it, they DO read it and we CAN do something!!! Here's the link to email your congressman: www.congress.org
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Last edited by stryder; 04-02-2004 at 12:22 PM.
- 04-02-2004, 04:17 PM
This whole thing is really not about AAS/PS or what ever. This is about the slow degradation of our constitutional rights and Big Brother telling us what to do. Now, I think Mr. Pres is a good man but heís dead wrong on this. Problem is there is nobody in DC with the nuts to even give a opposing opinion, let alone stand up and fight it. This is still the best country to live in that there is, and as much as Iím tempted to say itís time to grab the AK47ís, the pen is mightier than the sword. Iíve written twice to each of my Representatives and to the President and Iím going to write again. If we each sent an e-mail to ten people asking their help by writing to congress, and they sent it to 10 people in about 3 days they would have received about 14 million e-mails about it. THAT MIGHT GET THEM TO THINK!
04-02-2004, 05:03 PM
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
04-02-2004, 05:18 PM
Just got done writing Senator McCain. I urge you all to write your reps and senators. Please write a reasonable, intelligent letter as rants tend to get round filed. Our only hope lies in showing that there are intelligent people who use these products and that we're willing to organize.
If any of you can take the time to bitch on this or other forums then you certainly have time to write a letter to you elected officials..otherwise sit down, STFU, and smile as the government runs roughshod over your rights.
04-02-2004, 10:12 PM
At least with the "Robber Barons" we know who the enemy is and what to expect from them. Under the cloak of our elected leadership...?Originally Posted by mark
If half the effort that is put into this and other boards was focused on Washington our position wouldn't be nearly as tenuous.Originally Posted by bioman
04-03-2004, 10:02 AM
Ladies and Gentleman, we are in the days of special interest groups and career politicians. Money talks and bs walks and right now, the special interest groups are putting up all the money. Writing your Congressperson is effective to a certain point, but if your not flying them to Vegas for a special "convention", they will not give much thought to your argument. Imagine if a bill were in Congress to ban plastic surgery, which by the way kills and injures more people than steroids, ph, ephedra, etc. People would go crazy and burn stuff just to get their tummy tucks and nose jobs. Banning cigarettes and alcohol would ellicit the same response. Bodybuilders want to improve theirselves through hard work and they want to brand us as criminals. The only way to fight the ban would be to expose all the other "health-endangering" products and ask those to be banned also. People will not react or think deeply about issues unless it affects them personally. And as long as high fructose corn syrup is on the market so should ph's. (gets down off soapbox)
04-03-2004, 03:59 PM
We still have time to try and get the bill shot down!!!!
I used to work for C-SPAN, and this is about all I remember.........
The "PH BAN BILL" may have passed with no objections, but that is just in one committee. it still has to go through at least one other committee and possibly others before it even see's the floor. Then there will be the actual vote. If it passes, the senate will take their version and try and make the two match, they'll probably change it and the process starts all over in sub-committee's in both houses...it goes on like this until both houses pass the exact same bill and send it to Bush, where he can still Veto it (probably won't though, maybe gov. termitator can persuade him otherwise), this whole process may take till the end of the year, but either way, I don't see the ban going into effect until at least 2005. It's not the best knews, but we still have time before going to the darkside!!
Plus if you are really really rich, you can promise your senator or rep lots of campaign money for tabling it...good luck!!!
04-03-2004, 11:04 PM
04-04-2004, 04:46 AM
Good points ted. ......which is why the supplement companies never should have stopped lobbying. In order for the politicians they need to get a huge grass roots response from the consumers.Writing your Congressperson is effective to a certain point, but if your not flying them to Vegas for a special "convention", they will not give much thought to your argument. Imagine if a bill were in Congress to ban plastic surgery, which by the way kills and injures more people than steroids, ph, ephedra, etc.
04-04-2004, 05:08 AM
Are you kidding? If we had it Gore's way we would have only counted the liberal parts of Florida not the whole state and got rid of the absentee military votes. Al gore would have the same stance on steroids as Bush as will Kerry. Bush and Kerry are both member of the skull and bones secret society ( which is some pretty f'd up stuff if you read about it). There really isn't much difference between any of them. Look at half the crap Bush is doing.....the immigration issues, Medicare..... he isn't taking a very conservative stance on many issues besides the military which is debatable. The bottom line is it doesn't matter who is in office......... politicians and the media know that the public perception on steroids and prohormones at this point is negative. Therefore it's a win/ win situation for them. The media gets sensational news coverage and the politicians get there names in the paper.and we're living in a country where the President was never actually elected
Unless they get a huge response from people like us, a good amount of stuff isn't going to be around any more. Why do you think they ban androst.. first? Now they can say well if this stuff is harmful then the new stuff is worse. Their foot is in the door to ban the rest of the products. DHEA will probably be exempt because of the elderly lobby. They can also hang the supplement companies by their own words at this point. I guess years of marketing to high school kids make their IQ's drop. Looking at how they are dealing with this I can't believe how stupid they are.
04-04-2004, 10:58 PM
PH Ban bill #?
Can I have the pro-hormone ban bill #? (Or however they are classified.) So that I can reference it in my emails?
04-04-2004, 11:22 PM
I'm with ya, broOriginally Posted by SCORPIO
EDIT: These motherphukers are getting out of control with this banning ****. I think there are other things that should be on a higher priority than what supps can we ban. I.E. the economy, the job market, getting *******s off of welfare, etc.
04-05-2004, 12:16 AM
Hell yeah man, we'll be getting out of the corps soon enough, just stick it out for now.Originally Posted by unfknblvbl89
04-05-2004, 09:37 AM
04-05-2004, 09:59 AM
1. Chill out. I never said what IMO would be Gore's position, which is also pure conjecture from you.
2. The fact of the matter is that he did not win the popular vote, and nothing will change that. I could bring up many references with hard facts as to why this is true. If you wish to engage in that, this is not the place. It was a simple jab, nothing more.....so no need to overreact
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
04-05-2004, 12:01 PM
04-05-2004, 05:04 PM
04-05-2004, 07:13 PM
the reason they are putting so much emphasis on this ban, is that the economy is ****ed, they are in a war they cant win, they ****ed up many many times, and this is the best way to distract joe public..
get them on the banning bandwagon and they will forget all about how the pres ****ed up at every turn... ****ers
04-05-2004, 07:42 PM
problem is this another war they can't win.. it is like the drug war.. haven't ever made a dent in the problem... Prohibition another losing war on a drug... outlaw it and the Kennedy get rich off of running rum..
04-06-2004, 12:36 AM
Gore won the popular vote but that means nothing because of the electoral college. The united states is a constitutional republic not a democracy. Any way wrong thread for that. I wasn't over reacting and I hope I didn't come across that way.2. The fact of the matter is that he did not win the popular vote, and nothing will change that. I could bring up many references with hard facts as to why this is true. If you wish to engage in that, this is not the place. It was a simple jab, nothing more.....so no need to overreact
A few people seem to think that changing presidents will make a difference in the prohormone situation which it won't. Some people might think this because liberals are generally don't support heavy punishments for drug users and are also talking about legalizing some of them such as pot. For some reason many of them don't put steroids in the same class as recreational drugs. The bill was in committee before Bush made his state of the union address and has bipartisan support.
04-06-2004, 12:56 AM
If the supplement companies were smart they would hit them pretty hard on legal challenges they on ephedrine. Even if they loose they are sending the message that they will put up a fight. The only company I heard of fighting the ban was stacker. Instead they just roll over and take it telling the government that they are weak. Some of them have stopped making prohormones before a ban has even taken place. How long before you need a prescription for vitamin C like certain countries in Europe.There are signs of hope. The FDA has said that if the ban on ephedra holds up against likely legal challenges, it plans to go after other harmful supplements. Two bills, introduced by Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Susan Davis, would strengthen the FDA's authority under DSHEA
04-06-2004, 03:05 AM
vanillagorilla, it is not just liberals who support the legalization (and/or decrim) of pot. you only mention liberals.
this is one of the most annoying myths.
there are some dems (liberal or not) who have been among the most ardent drug warriors vis a vis pot. there are also many repubs (conservative or no) who have been among the strongest proponents of legalization/decrim.
let's not forget that national review, the conservative flagship magazine has been for decrim WAY before it was trendy in the nation et al.
let's also not forget that clinton was responsible for some of the most potent (on a %age basis) monetary expenditures in the drug war.
04-06-2004, 04:41 AM
What I meant was why some people on this list think that changing the pres. will have any impact on the prohormone legislation. I should have added have the perception to that sentence. It was also bubba drug czar who got the ball rolling on andro. He held a press con. about it a few years ago.
04-06-2004, 04:42 AM
.......look at the left coast. CA is one of the most lib. states in the country but 4-ad is no longer available there.
04-06-2004, 09:55 AM
I'm quite well aware of the electoral college, but thanks for reminding me
Again, it was a simple jab, nothing more. Maybe what you should have taken from it is that I think the electoral college idea is outdated and ridiculous, especially considering the ability of citizens to be informed now. I also never said a damn thing about changing the president and how this would affect prohormones. I do believe things would be in a different order on the domestic priority list, however (read as: I think we could have been bought more time if not for the mad dash to seem as though this administration is doing a ****ing thing domestically).
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
04-06-2004, 02:52 PM
I didn't say you did but other people in this thread have.I also never said a damn thing about changing the president and how this would affect prohormones.
[QUOTE]I think we could have been bought more time if not for the mad dashMaybe what you should have taken from it is that I think the electoral college idea is outdated and ridiculousAs I posted before Clintons drug czar who's name escapes me held a press conference saying they are looking into if prohormoes can be classified as steroids.So the ball was rolling a few years before bush was in office. With the gov. trying to link andro with the baseball scandal I doubt things would be any different or that we would have more time. Had the baseball scandal came out then the same thing would have happened four or five years ago. This would have been especially true if they changed the name of them to pro steroids back then as well. Why is it just a baseball scandal didn't half the NFL test positive for THG? I know 4 or 5 raiders tested positive for it.Maybe what you should have taken from it is that I think the electoral college idea is outdated and ridiculous, especially considering the ability of citizens to be informed now.[QUOTE] You mean like how the average citizens are informed on steroids, supplements, and exercise?I did. I used to agree with you on the e.c. I have changed my opinion about it but wrong thread.
04-06-2004, 04:22 PM
No, but they have the ability to easily be informed. In todays world the knowledge is right at their fingertips for instant gratification, whether or not they choose to soak it in is....well a personal choice, but they should not be treated as thought they are incapable of making this decision based on lack of knowledge.You mean like how the average citizens are informed on steroids, supplements, and exercise?
04-06-2004, 07:39 PM
the electoral college is a good idea, imo.
ironically i had a discussion about it a couple of weeks prior to the bush/gore election.
there are a # of reasons, but let's deal with the fact that we are, and have been - a republic - not a direct democracy.
the electoral college is a good thing. i like small states, i like state autonomy, and i like the way the EC forces candidates to play to states as well as individual voters.
04-06-2004, 10:14 PM
04-06-2004, 10:24 PM
Exactly, without the electoral college the presidency could probably be decided by New York and California alone. Don't like the drug war? Don't like the gov encroaching on your personal freedoms? Vote Libritarian.Originally Posted by jjjd
04-07-2004, 02:08 AM
Let me put it another way......... Do you think that the mainstream media accurately reports on issues such as steroids, diet, supplements, and exercise?No, but they have the ability to easily be informed. In todays world the knowledge is right at their fingertips for instant gratification, whether or not they choose to soak it in is....well a personal choice, but they should not be treated as thought they are incapable of making this decision based on lack of knowledge.
Exactly the point I was going to make. If CA, MA, VT, NH accounted for a huge population and vote one way and the rest of the states vote another , then 4 or 5 states get to decide who is president.Exactly, without the electoral college the presidency could probably be decided by New York and California alone.
I agree with some of what they stand for but some of the things they want to do I don't think would be a very good ideas like having an open boarder.Vote Libritarian
04-07-2004, 08:06 AM
A change in presidential leadership may not change much, but it would at least possibly send a message that if you start removing our freedoms, your out, and we'll give the next guy a try.
A change in congressional leadership also would help send the same message.
I'm just hoping I can get Canada to annex Texas
04-07-2004, 09:29 AM
04-07-2004, 12:18 PM
Actually, I believe it is very difficult to get correct knowledge regarding any anabolics. Way back when I first started looking into steroids, I found zero articles that had anything positive to say about them. Yes, the "good" information may be available, but based on my experience it is not accessible by the average person. They do not know where to look and the steroid community keeps it that way for a reason.Originally Posted by jweave23
04-07-2004, 03:22 PM
True but I don't think Kerry is any better.A change in presidential leadership may not change much, but it would at least possibly send a message that if you start removing our freedoms, your out, and we'll give the next guy a try.
A change in congressional leadership also would help send the same message.
04-07-2004, 06:20 PM
I agree with that too, I am more of a "Neal Boortz" libritarian. I usually vote for the party though. If nothing more then to just to keep them around. Maybe one day we can shake this two party system. This election year has alot a stake, so I might just have to make a real decision. I don't want to vote for somebody who will pull another mogodishu(spelling) and let our boys die for nothing.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
04-07-2004, 07:39 PM
Haaa...I love how this thread turned into a heavy political conversation!
Changing presidents won't do a thing.
The only thing that *might* slow things down is if the jacka$$ representing the millionaire baseball lazies would do something on his own...I don't know how many of you actually watched the congressional debate on CSPAN, but I did, and Pro Baseball essentially is forcing the gov't to "do something" b/c the overpaid pansies don't think it's fair that we can use PH but they can't...I decided then and there to stop supporting pro baseball (I live in Chicago--it's hard not to). EVERY OTHER SPORT took steps to self regulate.
And then who speaks for us? You must all realize that all congress wants to hear is a wise spokesperson for the supplement industry who could allay their fears about basement chemists selling liver-killers to 17 year olds and laughing all the way to the bank. They're searching for a balanced view from the other side...and what do they get? Silence? Reports of infighting? Complacency? BK bragging about how he can whip up a dozen new substances at the drop of a hat? It makes the industry look not only irresponsible and greedy, but also not in a position to make health-related decisions in terms of supplement production. Think about it. They can't even set aside their greed and egos for one minute to come up with their own standards...as a result, the gov't will be asked to do something, and they reluctantly will.
I must say, I don't think the government WANTS to ban anything. Who WANTS to make more work for themselves. Have you heard John McCain speak? He's saying "You guys can't act swiftly, and in doing so, you're forcing us to do something."
Virtually every other legitimate industry forms a coalition, a standardization body, a promotional team, and a set of guidelines. Hell, look at the whole "Got Milk" thing. Those are farmers. Think what some of the bigger companies could do if they cared.
The fact that they don't take action says so much...It's like they themselves feel like they "got caught," or else they would put up a fight.
And I love this:
Obviously, with it's pockets of strong liberalism and loud voices, CA seems to be a liberal state...but this is far from true. There is more aggregate wealth and conservatism (read: REPUBLICANS) than loud liberals. Look at the voting record. Look who they just elected Gov. States like Oregon are much more liberal on a whole host of issues.CA is one of the most lib. states in the country
I also find it funny that the pot discussion turns political, when it's neither a liberal or conservative agenda. Many people think, erroneously, that liberals are pro-legalization and conserv. are anti, when in reality, theories of small government and libertarianism and limited gov't intrusion are intrinsically conservative.
liberal/conservative...I stopped using those two words a long time ago, b/c they mean nothing now. The world is multi-colored, not black and white.
04-07-2004, 08:06 PM
liberal does not equal libertarian.
there are two different axes. liberal/conservative and authoritarian/libertarian.
in general, if one thinks that liberals/dems are any more likely to respect individual freedoms (imo, their record is more likely not to respect them) than cons/repubs, one is mistaken.
but that last point is arguable.
i find it amusing that people brought up canada. canada is far more leftist than we are. they also have far LESS personal freedoms on the whole. their speech rights are much more restricted than ours, their gun rights are practically nonexistent, and as for supplements - fuggedaboutit.
otoh, if you want to smoke or grow pot, canada's your place.
04-08-2004, 01:48 AM
CA isn't liberal? I don't know where to begin here.The reason Arnold got elected to governor was because Grey Davis made a huge mess of the state.Davis was a democrat. Some of the most liberal wing of the democrat party are from CA, IE Nancy Lugosi( who has an association with the socialist party), Maxine Waters, and Diane Feinstein . CA has the most left wing and most over turned court in the country. So the notion that CA is not a liberal state is simply not true. What happens is every once in a while people get sick of the BS that happens there and a conservative proposition will pop up.Obviously, with it's pockets of strong liberalism and loud voices, CA seems to be a liberal state...but this is far from true. There is more aggregate wealth and conservatism (read: REPUBLICANS) than loud liberals. Look at the voting record. Look who they just elected Gov.
For example a English only in schools type prop. made it on to the ballets and passed. Allot of support came from Spanish speaking families. They realized that if their kids don't learn English their kids future will be hurt. It passed and guess what happened? The judiciary over turned it.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Matthew D in forum General ChatReplies: 46Last Post: 06-06-2004, 02:35 PM
- By jmh80 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 38Last Post: 05-27-2004, 12:58 PM
- By 311 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 04-20-2004, 02:13 PM
- By YellowJacket in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 01-16-2003, 04:03 PM
- By pjorstad in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 12-30-2002, 02:58 PM