The PH Ban is for real now

Page 3 of 3 First 123

  1. 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
    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.
    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.


  2. 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
    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.
    •   
       


  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. .......look at the left coast. CA is one of the most lib. states in the country but 4-ad is no longer available there.
    •   
       


  6. 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).

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    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.
    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.

  7. I also never said a damn thing about changing the president and how this would affect prohormones.
    I didn't say you did but other people in this thread have.
    [QUOTE]I think we could have been bought more time if not for the mad dash
    As 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
    I did. I used to agree with you on the e.c. I have changed my opinion about it but wrong thread.
    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?

  8. You mean like how the average citizens are informed on steroids, 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.

  9. 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.

  10. please do

  11. Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    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.
    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.

  12. 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.
    Let me put it another way......... Do you think that the mainstream media accurately reports on issues such as steroids, diet, supplements, and exercise?
    Exactly, without the electoral college the presidency could probably be decided by New York and California alone.
    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.
    Vote Libritarian
    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.

  13. 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

  14. Quote Originally Posted by -2z-

    I'm just hoping I can get Canada to annex Texas
    So you're saying you prefer socialism?

  15. Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    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.
    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.

  16. 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.
    True but I don't think Kerry is any better.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    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.
    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.

  18. 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:
    CA is one of the most lib. states in the country
    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.

    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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
    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.
    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.

  21. 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 agree with you that the supplement industry can thank them selves for allot of this. One thing that needs to happen is the baseball scandal needs to go away fast. I doubt this will happen and at this point I doubt some intelligent person from the supplement industry will help. The FDA has it positioned it's self to ban all prohormones. Even if the three bills don't make it is probably likely that the FDA will just step in and ban all of it like they did with ephedrine. I also think the government deliberately linked prohormones to the baseball scandal, which would indicate that they will get rid of the regardless. Sorry but mark Maguire didn't break the home run record and get 20 inch arms from andro. So prohormones will be banned and athletes will just move on to the next undetectable steroid.

  22. See the attachment for my argument.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  23. Try getting back on topic guys.


    I encourage you all to continue to email, call, and write your elected officials to complain.

    Now that the issue is more pressing, elected officials may be more inclined to listen. it certainly will not hurt to try.

  24. Now back to my post

  25. If you live in the USA then this should concern you. I think it would be in your best interest to write/fax and/or call. These pending matters do not only effect the supplement industry but it also would institute harsher penalties on AAS.

    http://www.usfa.biz/modules.php?op=m...le&sid=4&mp=11


    I believe the above link only gives the people who are heading these bills. If you desire to send directly to officials for your region use this link http://mygov.governmentguide.com/myg...ials/congress/ and just copy the letter fromt he USFA site.
    Last edited by size; 04-08-2004 at 03:52 PM.

  26. Well done, Size!
  27. Bush/Kerry


    Quote Originally Posted by Jergo
    We need to get Bush the **** out of office...
    I can't stand that ****. Everyone needs to vote democrat; even though I don't care much for Kerry either, but I won't stand for Bush anymore. If Bush gets elected, I'm moving to Canada...
    This has nothing to do with the price of tea in china...republicans AND an equal number of democrats are for this ban.

    This ban is bi-partisan and no one is going to be against it for the most part. It's politically at a disadvantage. Bush has nothing to do with this ban anyway...that's just dumb. If you're referring to his speech about steroids in pro-sports...these were not included or referred to.
  28. People


    Quote Originally Posted by Kristopher
    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
    It's funny...people bring up every possible thing that goes on in the world that they think is ****ed up when one issue comes up. The partisan horn sounds and the democrats and the republicans are divided.

    I'm against the ban obviously but we are not in a war we cannot win. The economy has been on the upswing for several months, including the stockmarket on a steady rise, last months employment going up, the GDP going up and every economist except for liberal pundits agree the economy is in a good recovery. Is everything perfect...no. Will anyone in any office do everything perfect...of course not.

    How many of "Joe Public" will be "distracted" by this ban that CONGRESS is passing (overwhelming high percentages of republicans AND Democrats)....NONE...that's just dumb thinking that a PH or AAS ban is distracting anyone from anything.

    I support GWB as president and for the most part I've agreed with about 75% of what he's done. Cut taxes twice and made REAL differences in my paycheck (some of which paid for my PH's). He's raised my pay (Fed. Employee) three times in substantial amounts. I believe we have done morally right in Iraq because I've seen it firsthand and people who haven't who sit on their liberal and Ignorant high horse really should see what was compared to what is in Iraq today. Yep, again, there's problems...those seeking eutopian solutions are fools in the first place...but except for a few areas we rescued that country from a terrible murderous dictator.

    There were also people who were very much against WWII until Pearl Harbor. Isolationist will never learn...we are one and Evil Succeeds and Flourishes when good men do nothing.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by size
    If you live in the USA then this should concern you. I think it would be in your best interest to write/fax and/or call. These pending matters do not only effect the supplement industry but it also would institute harsher penalties on AAS.

    http://www.usfa.biz/modules.php?op=m...le&sid=4&mp=11


    I believe the above link only gives the people who are heading these bills. If you desire to send directly to officials for your region use this link http://mygov.governmentguide.com/myg...ials/congress/ and just copy the letter fromt he USFA site.


    Stay focused ladies.

  30. Agreed Size.

    If you all can take the time to rant here you can take the time to write your elected officials. Let's not go down quietly.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-06-2004, 03:35 PM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-27-2004, 01:58 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-20-2004, 03:13 PM
  4. What does a potential PH ban do for AAS users?
    By YellowJacket in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-16-2003, 05:03 PM
  5. So if the ph-ban goes through.........
    By pjorstad in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-30-2002, 03:58 PM
Log in
Log in