The PH Ban is for real now
- 04-04-2004, 05:08 AM
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
Similar Forum Threads
- By heavyiron in forum IronMag LabsReplies: 18Last Post: 12-30-2014, 07:36 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