What would happen if prohormones were banned in transit?
- 06-04-2004, 07:34 PM
- 06-04-2004, 07:48 PM
Accepting the shipment would be a felony since possession will be illegal.
But do you really think any DA would pursue such a case?
06-04-2004, 07:52 PM
I can't really see the dea going after a domestic shipment that quickly, as to do so they'd have to immediately start tracking shipments within the continental USA, and that I would assume that would take some time to set up a network to be able to do so.
06-04-2004, 07:54 PM
How do you refuse a delivery unless you were waiting outside the mailbox...I read a post somewhere (which I think is a good idea IF you're concerned about it) that when you receive your package write on the box "Return to Sender" or something to that effect. That way if anyone was to come asking questions just say you didn't order it and was going to return it, but haven't got around to it. But the chance of that ever happening is slim to none.
06-04-2004, 08:03 PM
Thanks, that's what I figured. I'd like to stock up some more but I can't risk it in case they somehow fast track this bill. A drug felony for me and my career would pretty much be over.
06-04-2004, 08:10 PM
First of all, this is a non-issue. I think it's highly unlikely anyone would be pursued in such a case.
Stryder- The answer to your question about refusing a package while away from the house depends on what kind of building you live in. If you have a doorman that accepts packages for you or if your mailbox is big enough for the package, then the carrier can just leave the package there. If that's the case, then you should leave a note on your box, "Not accepting packages from Freaky Prohormone Company Inc."
If the package is too big for your box and there's no doorman, then the carrier is technically NOT ALLOWED to just leave a package outside the house somewhere. They are also NOT ALLOWED to leave it with a neighbor. They do it all the time, but officially, it's not post office policy. This is according to my local post office (I once had a mail order dispute and asked these questions).
If you are worried about any prohormones after the ban, send them to me for proper disposal :-)
06-04-2004, 09:05 PM
There would be a waiting period before they would enforce a law on a previous legal product, so order up now, its not illegal yet and things take a while in goverment, I was a marine it took forever to get any thing done, paperwork, processing etc.
06-04-2004, 09:07 PM
I ain't no lawyer, but I don't think they can even do anything if it's postmarked with a pre-ban date. Even afterwards if you still have gobs and gobs of it laying around and have proof that you bought it pre-ban IE, receipts, etc, the same thing applies, unless they give an actual disposal date for consumers...
People like Sledge might know more about this since they will probably get information mailed to them about the certain guidelines/rules to follow when it does come time...well, maybe not SLedge himself, but the manufacturer's that the gov't already knows exists and sells these products....maybe he can chime in here...
06-04-2004, 09:14 PM
i'm no lawyer either, but i don't think that having pre-ban receipts will save your azz. Let's say it's after the ban and you get pulled over for a traffic violation and there is a bottle of 1-AD sitting there next to ya. i'm pretty sure the cop could basically arrest you for having a scheduled drug with you. But, you say "here's my receipt dated before the ban!" the cop says, "that's nice, see my nice handcuffs that i'm going to use on you?" that's how i see it. kinda like GHB, pre-ban receipt? blah!Originally Posted by Jergo
06-04-2004, 09:16 PM
06-04-2004, 09:18 PM
A waiting period is unlikely. If the bill passes as-is, it means making products scheduled.
In any case, receipts don't technically matter. Possession is still possession. Having said that, producing a pre-ban receipt might give you leniency in court.
But the circumstances posed here are so hypothetical and unlikely to happen anyway...
06-04-2004, 09:28 PM
Well I know I will be shipping until someone sends me or informs me that I can longer sell them.
As far as I know and I am not a lawyer and I dont pretend to know the law, but I assume after the ban when they become illegal, it wont matter if you have a reciept or not. But I also highly doubt anyone will be coming to your house for your bottle of M4OHN.
My other guess is that if there isnt a compound on that list (and please dont anyone post which ones arent listed, there is no need to help anyone out. they have plenty of people and money to look for themselves) and the DEA doesnt get the power to add compounds at random some will or maybe sold longer then others.
06-04-2004, 10:16 PM
So far I havent heard of a "grandfather clause", that would cut off sales, but still allow a grace period for people that ordered them.Originally Posted by Designer Supps
I did read something in last months MD that did mention something about the DEA having to add compounds...could of been the FDA...don't remember..I'll look it up.
06-04-2004, 10:23 PM
That is the big problem, if the DEA/FDA can add compounds at will, then there will be no new compounds ever worked on. As soon as it were released they could "claim" it to be a steroid and that would be it.
But there may be a couple that can sneak there way back into use...
06-04-2004, 10:28 PM
Yeah, thats what I was thinking....Originally Posted by Designer Supps
Even after the ban, say someone wants to research a "designer" compound that isn't on the list and eventually comes out with it on the market. It would have to be kinda on the DL to not attract major attention so the DEA/FDA could not simply add it to the list like you just said sledge...
But until they would find out about it and add it, it would be perfectly legit and they couldn't do a damn thing about it...
06-04-2004, 10:58 PM
06-04-2004, 11:11 PM
Bottom of page 88 MD may issue "FDA can ban supplement without proof of harm"...if there is significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injuury......what that tells me is that the community could be in more danger because the market timing and the market life of a supplement may lead to knee jerk reactions in coming up with newer products to sell....
06-04-2004, 11:46 PM
There's a difference between (1) scheduling a substance (what is happening now) and (2) the FDA banning sales of a supplement.
#1 can be done for practically anything with a lot of work (relatively speaking) from Congress. That's what's happening now.
#2 cannot be done on practically anything. The FDA can't arbitrarily ban a brand new supplement that has never been used by anyone. They have to at least produce something that demonstrates risk to the public.
The implication of this is that if a new prohormone comes out, the FDA is somewhat powerless until they demonstrate risk. That's why the scheduling tactic is being used against prohormones. They're also trying to stop future prohormones by defining them broadly in relation to testosterone. I could be mistaken, but after following the whole ephedra process, that's my understanding of the law.
06-05-2004, 12:31 AM
I don't think so..Originally Posted by rrgg
If that were the case, then they would have an easier way of just simply scheduling something rather than taking it off the shelves....
So what you're saying is it takes less work to schedule something than just pulling it off the shelves? If anything, it would be easier to just pull the product than to actually schedule it...the complete opposite.
Like I said, I ain't no lawyer, but that theory doesn't make sense...
Last edited by lifted; 06-05-2004 at 12:48 AM.
06-05-2004, 12:47 AM
****, after reading up a little bit more, I see what you mean now...LOL...
Says that certain powers and authorizations are only performed by certain administrations....
Like I said, I ain't no lawyer, so I'll shut my trap now...LOL...
06-05-2004, 01:25 AM
come on, people sell all kinds of illegal stuff on the internet openly. Only way you're going to get caught is if it's coming from overseas and customs happens to randomly check your package. Even then you won't get in trouble unless they catch you a few times.
06-05-2004, 01:42 AM
I'm not quite up to speed on the wording for the revised bill banning ph's, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I was under the impression that any ph that is a precursor or even a precursor to a precursor to a steriod will fall under the ban. I know there's a list of certain compounds, but I believe there's a clause in there that doesn't limit it to the list...
06-05-2004, 02:21 AM
stryder- That's my reading of it too. That's why I wrote, "They're also trying to stop future prohormones by defining them broadly in relation to testosterone."
I don't believe the FDA has the power to "pre-emptively" ban products that haven't been invented, but Congress does. I don't understand the claims that DHEA is being exempted from this somehow... The "list" is there in the bill only to prevent any contest of known prohormones.
06-05-2004, 02:28 AM
I'll tell you why, it's because the majority of voters are from the babyboom generation and to them that constitutes a vote for themselves...older people are the ones that use it the most. Hell, my father whose a doctor and 51yrs. old uses it and looks great...Originally Posted by rrgg
I remember reading some place today that the house votes were something like 408 to 3....I don't like my state sentors to begin with, so even if they do vote against it in the upcoming future, I'm voting against them as well...
06-05-2004, 02:46 AM
Jergo-- I understand that point completely. I know the voting issue and the power of the elderly.
What I meant is that from reading the bill, I didn't glean the DHEA exemption. Maybe I missed something obvious...
Let's take the nazi congress argument one step further. Suppose we had this ban in place many years ago --- no new testosterone related supplements allowed. That means DHEA would never have made it to the market. People are oblivious to the unintended consequences of this ban.
06-05-2004, 11:34 AM
Yes, I see your point...this ban negates all the scientific discoveries not only to anabolic benefits, but also those seeking to promote longevity and a higher quality of life.
This ban is a regressive step in science...
06-05-2004, 04:45 PM
Like I said I can still think of a couple ways to get a couple compounds around it. who knows for how long but I think it can be done, so I plan on doing it. It really depends on how they word teh final draft as to how "specialized" marketing will need to be
06-06-2004, 06:30 PM
06-06-2004, 08:20 PM
It's an interesting question on how they will handle classifying prohormones as a schedule 3. This deferrers from effedrine because the DEA will be handling it. Once it becomes illegal the DHEA could technically raid companies making the product.(didn't they do this with triax?) Any lawyers on here?
06-06-2004, 10:38 PM
you don't have to be a lawyer to know the law.
if and when they make ph's a scheduled drug AND the law goes into effect, then pre-ban receipts are irrelevant.
they could be a mitigating circumstance, at best. but in terms of the letter of the law, once the substance becomes c-III, then it is c-III. which means it can only be legally possessed with a prescription.
and poss. w/o one is a felony
people here are correct in that i doubt the DEA or local cops are going to put much effort into enforcing this law in regards to 1-ad or whatever. at least in regards to possession cases.
heck, DEA doesn't barely ever get involved in Possession cases, unless you are talking very big quantities of a drug
and you are spot on in regards to the difference between ephedrine/ephedra (banned to sell AS dietary supplements) and the impending PH ban (to be scheduled as CS)
totally different animals.
if the FDA bans something to sell as dietary supp, that only affects manufacturer/seller NOT user.
for example. fda banned l-tryptophan as a dietary supplement. it is still sold in tack stores as a horse supplement. perfectly legal to buy for yourself and use.
Similar Forum Threads
- By schwellington in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 17Last Post: 07-19-2010, 04:47 PM
- By oswizzle in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 01-14-2006, 08:59 AM
- By oswizzle in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 05-25-2005, 10:20 AM
- By hogiejoe in forum General ChatReplies: 54Last Post: 03-15-2005, 02:09 PM
- By jas123 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 09-03-2004, 04:15 PM