Superdrol now a controlled substance?

[JudoJosh]

Superior Metabolic Technologies Inc Recalls Uprizing 2.0 Because the Product Contains Superdrol, Which is a Synthetic Steroid, Making it an Unapproved New Drug

[h=3]Superior Metabolic Technologies Inc Recalls Uprizing 2.0 Because the Product Contains Superdrol, Which is a Synthetic Steroid, Making it an Unapproved New Drug[/h]
Contact:
Consumer:
Lou Tenaglia
(888) 445-3230

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - October 3, 2011, Marietta, Georgia. Superior Metabolic Technologies Inc of Marietta, Georgia is voluntarily recalling all lots of the testosterone booster Uprizing 2.0 because tests have shown the product appears to contain superdrol, a synthetic steroid, making it an unapproved new drug.​

On August 5 the FDA made Superior Metabolic Technologies Inc aware that Uprizing 2.0 contains superdrol which is banned by the FDA. This led to the recall of the product.
Acute liver injury is known to be a possible harmful effect of using products containing synthetic anabolic steroids. In addition, use of synthetic anabolic steroids may cause other serious long-term adverse health consequences in men, women, and children. These include shrinkage of the testes and male infertility, masculinization of women, breast enlargement in males, short stature in children, a higher prediction to misuse other drugs and alcohol, adverse effects on blood lipid levels, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.
Uprizing 2.0 was distributed through retail health food stores in Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas.

Uprizing 2.0 comes in a black plastic bottle with a black, red, and silver label and contains 90 capsules. The SMT logo is center top on the bottle.

Consumers who purchased Uprizing 2.0 are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-445-3230, from 10 AM to 6 PM EST Monday through Friday.

And then theres this

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm254526.htm

May 5, 2011: Dietary Supplements Manufacturer Sentenced

Tribravus Enterprises, LLC, dba IForce Nutrition, was sentenced today in federal court in Boise for causing purported dietary supplements to be unlawfully manufactured and distributed in interstate commerce, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson announced. Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill sentenced Tribravus to three years probation; a $125,000 fine, payable in installments, and a $400 special assessment. As conditions of probation, the court ordered future financial disclosures and a monitoring and testing protocol that includes testing of all products distributed by Tribravus / IForce for banned steroids.

According to the plea agreement, Tribravus / IForce distributed the products

 

[mattrag]

OH NOES!!!

 

[middleageguy]

Superior Metabolic Technologies Inc Recalls Uprizing 2.0 Because the Product Contains Superdrol, Which is a Synthetic Steroid, Making it an Unapproved New Drug

Looks to be a bit more than the recall of this one Dietary Supplements Manufacturer.

May 5, 2011: Dietary Supplements Manufacturer Sentenced
Link to FDA.gov website ---:> http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm254526.htm

According to the plea agreement, Tribravus / IForce distributed the products “17aPheraFLEX,” “Dymethazine” and “Methadrol” as dietary supplements. The FDA found that these products contained synthetic steroids, known as “DMT” or “Madol” and “Superdrol.” Thus they were not dietary supplements but rather unapproved drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Tribravus Enterprises agreed to pay the $125,000 fine and implement a testing protocol for its products to ensure future products sold as dietary supplements do not contain synthetic steroids.

Link to search at FDA.gov website ---:> http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=SUPERDROL&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields

My Question is:
If a consumer had purchased products that contain “Superdrol” are they holding a “controlled substance” or are they just holding products that is no longer available because of FDA recalls?

 

[MDiocre]

Crap I shoulda thrown Super-DMZ x3 on my last order lol

 

[fadi]

superdrol was not on the banned list was it? if not, that means the FDA can act on any steroid/PH even if not on the list wouldn't it?

 

[HereToStudy]

Guys, you have to remember. Even "legal" prohormones are grey area. If they are not DSHEA complaint, than they can be attacked. Hell, even products that are DSHEA can eventually be attacked, but a methylated ACTIVE steroid sold as a dietary supplement is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

 

[fadi]

Looks to be a bit more than the recall of this one Dietary Supplements Manufacturer.

May 5, 2011: Dietary Supplements Manufacturer Sentenced
Link to FDA.gov website ---:> http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm254526.htm

According to the plea agreement, Tribravus / IForce distributed the products “17aPheraFLEX,” “Dymethazine” and “Methadrol” as dietary supplements. The FDA found that these products contained synthetic steroids, known as “DMT” or “Madol” and “Superdrol.” Thus they were not dietary supplements but rather unapproved drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Tribravus Enterprises agreed to pay the $125,000 fine and implement a testing protocol for its products to ensure future products sold as dietary supplements do not contain synthetic steroids.

Link to search at FDA.gov website ---:> http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=SUPERDROL&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields

My Question is:
If a consumer had purchased products that contain “Superdrol” are they holding a “controlled substance” or are they just holding products that is no longer available because of FDA recalls?

if it is classified as controlled substance then yes you would be holding controlled substance. but te FDA is not going to come knocking on your door.

 

[T-Bone]

Cool. I would be happy if they banned that rat poison.

 

[B5150]

Cool. I would be happy if they banned that rat poison.

We have a group that fights for freedom to do with their bodies what they want. We also have a group that fights to control us from doing to our bodies what we want.

No one forces it down your throat do they? You, Sir, are free to not take rat poison. It doesn't need to be banned for you to control what you do to your body.

 

[Mrpersinality]

We have a group that fights for freedom to do with their bodies what they want. We also have a group that fights to control us from doing to our bodies what we want.

No one forces it down your throat do they? You, Sir, are free to not take rat poison. It doesn't need to be banned for you to control what you do to your body.

%100 agree.

 

[3clipseGT]

We have a group that fights for freedom to do with their bodies what they want. We also have a group that fights to control us from doing to our bodies what we want.

No one forces it down your throat do they? You, Sir, are free to not take rat poison. It doesn't need to be banned for you to control what you do to your body.

Agreed as well.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk

 

[chocolatemilk]

Cool. I would be happy if they banned that rat poison.

:261:... I'd rather not pay ridiculous underground price tags for dirt cheap SD powder :fing26:

 

[diablosho]

I'm not exactly surprised, and I'm also not too upset about this judgement. This could have been avoided!!! The industry, in an attempt to maximize sales, effectually sold steroids to children (knowingly) in many cases (which is where they went wrong). This really upsets me, and had it not been for the fact that I research every supplement I take, I would have been one of the statistics (one of the people that took Superdrol of all things), without actually knowing it was a steroid (or even what a PCT was/liver protection/cycle protection/etc.) I probably would have taken 2x/3x the maximum recommended dosage (most supplements' dosages are set at a level to avoid lawsuits, after all, not necessarily effectiveness...), for probably 2x/3x as long, without any kind of cycle prep/protection, and really damaged my health (just like MANY other people). People really have been damaged by this **** (of course their stupidity and ignorance played a significant role as well), and as such, this kind of thing was bound to happen. I've known a few people in the Air Force that were taking these "prohormones" pretty much year-round (that's how I heard about these products), and I'm fairly certain their health is not so good, even if they don't know it yet. But at least they're adults who should know to research these things.

If we can't protect minors and limit our sales TO adults, then the feds ARE going to step in (it is their job to protect the masses). That's just a fact of life. How the **** is it that WE THE CUSTOMERS were telling kids not to take them, which should have been done by the people SELLING the steroids TO them?!? Selling steroids as dietary supplements, as convenient as it was, also allowed (even encouraged in many cases) teens to take them as well. This FDA judgment is not something I'd even half-way consider fighting. But, once the industry gets their head out of their ass, and some regulations come into play that will provide necessary safety information and restrict sales to people over 21, I would love to see these products become legal again.

Ignorance can only be blamed for so much. At some point, the manufacturer HAS to take responsibility, and by damaging their health without telling them to even so much as WATCH OUT for the damage (as side effects of steroid abuse), by neglecting to mention that it was an ACTIVE STEROID with (possibly) permanent hormonal changes/heart problems/etc., and by selling it to minors to begin with, I believe the burden of the blame must lie with the manufacturers. You can't blame a consumer for buying something legal. Anywho, just my $.02!
--Brian

 

[T-Bone]

:261:... I'd rather not pay ridiculous underground price tags for dirt cheap SD powder :fing26:

View attachment 45485

 

[B5150]

I'm not exactly surprised, and I'm also not too upset about this judgement. This could have been avoided!!! The industry, in an attempt to maximize sales, effectually sold steroids to children (knowingly) in many cases (which is where they went wrong). This really upsets me, and had it not been for the fact that I research every supplement I take, I would have been one of the statistics (one of the people that took Superdrol of all things), without actually knowing it was a steroid (or even what a PCT was/liver protection/cycle protection/etc.) I probably would have taken 2x/3x the maximum recommended dosage (most supplements' dosages are set at a level to avoid lawsuits, after all, not necessarily effectiveness...), for probably 2x/3x as long, without any kind of cycle prep/protection, and really damaged my health (just like MANY other people). People really have been damaged by this **** (of course their stupidity and ignorance played a significant role as well), and as such, this kind of thing was bound to happen. I've known a few people in the Air Force that were taking these "prohormones" pretty much year-round (that's how I heard about these products), and I'm fairly certain their health is not so good, even if they don't know it yet. But at least they're adults who should know to research these things.

If we can't protect minors and limit our sales TO adults, then the feds ARE going to step in (it is their job to protect the masses). That's just a fact of life. How the **** is it that WE THE CUSTOMERS were telling kids not to take them, which should have been done by the people SELLING the steroids TO them?!? Selling steroids as dietary supplements, as convenient as it was, also allowed (even encouraged in many cases) teens to take them as well. This FDA judgment is not something I'd even half-way consider fighting. But, once the industry gets their head out of their ass, and some regulations come into play that will provide necessary safety information and restrict sales to people over 21, I would love to see these products become legal again.

Ignorance can only be blamed for so much. At some point, the manufacturer HAS to take responsibility, and by damaging their health without telling them to even so much as WATCH OUT for the damage (as side effects of steroid abuse), by neglecting to mention that it was an ACTIVE STEROID with (possibly) permanent hormonal changes/heart problems/etc., and by selling it to minors to begin with, I believe the burden of the blame must lie with the manufacturers. You can't blame a consumer for buying something legal. Anywho, just my $.02!
--Brian

You have stated in many words what I have said all along. The industry has unscrupulous owners who have ruined it for the entire industry. They have not and will not self regulate. Now the government will do it for them.

 

[chocolatemilk]

View attachment 45485

 

[josephd79]

if it's now a controlled substance, then yes...you could get in trouble for possessing it. Just like prescription drugs, they are controlled but with a prescription from a doctor, you can carry it. Obviously you wouldn't get a script from a doc for SD... I just wouldn't drive around with them in a bottle or loose in your pocket.

For those of you arguing we have freedom, make sure you all vote for GOP this time... I don't want to see any Dems on here quote freedom! (Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy)

 

[HereToStudy]

if it's now a controlled substance, then yes...you could get in trouble for possessing it. Just like prescription drugs, they are controlled but with a prescription from a doctor, you can carry it. Obviously you wouldn't get a script from a doc for SD... I just wouldn't drive around with them in a bottle or loose in your pocket.

For those of you arguing we have freedom, make sure you all vote for GOP this time... I don't want to see any Dems on here quote freedom! (Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy)

Keep this to politics subforums.

 

[jbryand101b]

im pretty sure superdrol has not been added to the list of controlled substances.

legal to sell? not really.

against the law to have it if you already do? not that i have seen.

 

[Sourdough]

im pretty sure superdrol has not been added to the list of controlled substances.

legal to sell? not really.

against the law to have it if you already do? not that i have seen.

I'm fairly certain this is absolutely correct.

It's not banned or specifically added to any controlled substance list. But is covered by the "blanket act" of not being able to sell a known steroid that has no dietary substance to it whatsoever as a supplement. It must be dshea compliant and even the label claims can't be conflicting or misleading.

I'm almost certain this still means though that it is completely legal to possess.... But I wouldn't keep kilos of powder in my house either

 

[mich29]

Guys, you have to remember. Even "legal" prohormones are grey area. If they are not DSHEA complaint, than they can be attacked. Hell, even products that are DSHEA can eventually be attacked, but a methylated ACTIVE steroid sold as a dietary supplement is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

very well said here.

this is why people has been creating stashes for years now.


my advice would get all that you can while you can cuz the day is coming unfortunately

 

[HondaV65]

I'm not exactly surprised, and I'm also not too upset about this judgement. This could have been avoided!!! The industry, in an attempt to maximize sales, effectually sold steroids to children (knowingly) in many cases (which is where they went wrong).

--Brian

Sorry man - but I just can't get into the whole ... "HEY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" excuses that are used to grow this government into one, big Leviathan Nanny State.

Meh ... "For the Children" - we banned Ephedrine - which is an outstanding compound when used responsibly. You can't even buy Primatine at the Drug store anymore without surrendering your driver's license - EVEN if you're using it for what it's intended for - but it's "All for the Children"! So that's okay.

Just how were these companies supposed to "self-regulate" and only sell to adults? Even announcing that they wouldn't sell to anyone but adults would have brought the government down on them - because what they were selling could have easily been interpreted by this government as illegal. So basically, any self-regulation on their part would have been equivalent to picking up the phone - calling the FDA and announcing ... "Hey I got illegal **** I'm selling here! Come arrest me!"

I'm 49 and I've got three kids - two of them grown and off on their own. I didn't have any problems raising them. I taught them that the world is full of all kinds of **** that will hurt you and you'd better watch out for yourself.

Kids are going to get hurt no matter what happens. Hell - fully grown adults get hurt. Stupid people - get hurt, it's kind of a fact of evolution.

And the government is never going to STOP evolutionary processes.

The drug companies don't have a responsibility to kids. The people looking out for kids should be the parents. My Dad kept me OFF every kind of drug out there - even Marijuana. I kept my kids off the stuff too. Once they're grown - they can do what they want. But when they live in my house no drug company is responsible for them and neither is any government.

 

[diablosho]

I'm extremely conservative, but I have difficulty with this issue. Ordinarily I would agree with you, that stupid people get hurt. But how is a consumer stupid for going to GNC and buying a weight-lifting supplement, and using it in a manner that would be safe for ANY other supplement (dosage wise), and then getting hurt? They most likely were not AWARE that they were taking a risk in the first place!!! That's the difference! And let's face it, they were selling STEROIDS! I bought 'em, sure, but I'm also an adult and I am willing to accept the consequences. A teenager is not.

As well, we restrict alcohol and tobacco from minors, and it works out pretty well (of course they still get them, but it's at a MUCH lower rate than it used to be before regulation). Again, I'm typically against government intrusion into private business, but in this case it was necessary because the private businesses were not willing to police themselves. If you're going to tell me that a manufacturer could not figure out a way to mandate an ID showing 21+ years old at the time of purchase, I just don't see it. In addition, there are quite a few ways to label a bottle to inform you that the product IS dangerous and in what ways.

So basically, any self-regulation on their part would have been equivalent to picking up the phone - calling the FDA and announcing ... "Hey I got illegal **** I'm selling here! Come arrest me!"

You just proved my point. They knew they were selling illegal steroids, often times to minors, with far-less-than-adequate labelling (thus inhibiting the risk/benefit analysis by the consumer at the time of sale), all so they could make a buck.

And Ephedrine is controlled because it is the main pre-cursor to Crystal Meth (same reason Pseudoephedrine is controlled), not because kids were being idiots and taking too much of it to get a buzz.

Kids are going to get hurt no matter what happens

So we should allow them to take dangerous products without informing them of such? Because the only way we will be able to inform them of the dangers (if not completely restrict them from buying the products) is to have the government regulate the manufacturer, because the manufacturers have already shown they just don't care.

And my parents kept me off drugs as well (the best they could), and before I was 18 I was hooked on a slew of different drugs. Parenting can only go so far. When the kids buy the **** and leave it in their locker at school (to take before gym, for instance), how are the parents going to stop them?

You may scoff at the "protecting the children", but it IS society's role to protect our children. They don't have the life experiences that we have to teach them to be skeptical and to research everything. They are naive and learning as they go. And you think we should just let them (potentially) permanently harm their bodies as some kind of teaching moment? Sometimes government regulations are necessary, and it is painfully clear that THIS industry NEEDS some regulating. The only problem is the government tends to go off the deep end. We'll see.
--Brian

 

[kingjameskjf]

Looks to be a bit more than the recall of this one Dietary Supplements Manufacturer.

May 5, 2011: Dietary Supplements Manufacturer Sentenced
Link to FDA.gov website ---:> http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm254526.htm

According to the plea agreement, Tribravus / IForce distributed the products “17aPheraFLEX,” “Dymethazine” and “Methadrol” as dietary supplements. The FDA found that these products contained synthetic steroids, known as “DMT” or “Madol” and “Superdrol.” Thus they were not dietary supplements but rather unapproved drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Tribravus Enterprises agreed to pay the $125,000 fine and implement a testing protocol for its products to ensure future products sold as dietary supplements do not contain synthetic steroids.

Link to search at FDA.gov website ---:> http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=SUPERDROL&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields

My Question is:
If a consumer had purchased products that contain “Superdrol” are they holding a “controlled substance” or are they just holding products that is no longer available because of FDA recalls?

This is old news. If it is not a scheduled drug, then it is not controlled, thus why it is just an "unapproved" drug and can't be marketed as a "dietary supplement".

...And Ephedrine is controlled because it is the main pre-cursor to Crystal Meth (same reason Pseudoephedrine is controlled), not because kids were being idiots and taking too much of it to get a buzz.
...

Ephedrine is NOT controlled. It is merely banned from being classified as a dietary supplement, thus why it is still available OTC at places like Wal-Mart and Walgreens.

 

[henryv]

If it is not a scheduled drug, then it is not controlled, thus why it is just an "unapproved" drug and can't be marketed as a "dietary supplement".

^ ^ ^

 

[HondaV65]

You just proved my point. They knew they were selling illegal steroids, often times to minors, with far-less-than-adequate labelling (thus inhibiting the risk/benefit analysis by the consumer at the time of sale), all so they could make a buck.

Well - MY point is that the substance should not be illegal. Marijuana shouldn't be illegal. LSD shouldn't be illegal. You're a conservative - I'm a Libertarian.

I don't care about other people's kids - I care only about MINE. I'm not interested in taking money away from my kids, that I've earned honestly - and giving it to the government so that they can take care of YOUR kids. YOU should take care of your kids - not me, and not my tax dollars.

Anything you put in your body - whether it's an apple or DBol - you need to know what the dangers and hazards are - if you don't - then don't put it in your body. Easy enough.

If you Do put it in your body and something bad happens - then it sucks to be you. A lot of people are going to learn from your mistake - and they won't make the same one. Others, who are stupid - won't learn from your mistakes and will repeat them.

This is LIFE.

EDIT: Let me reiterate - the government is taking OUR money (in the form of taxes) and using that money to staff and fund government agencies specifically designed to repress our liberties so that the more stupid examples of us don't hurt ourselves. It's not right.

 

[diablosho]

If Bayer was selling Cyanide as Tylenol, would you expect the government to stop them, or would it be the consumer's risk? How about Ecstasy? If kids were buying Ecstasy from the internet because of some legal-loophole, would that be acceptable? That's all I'm getting at, is that many consumers don't KNOW that it is harmful, and only see the bright side! I don't want you to take care of my kids, but I do expect that a product available to MY children (legally) will be a safe product for them to take. I'm a realist, and recognize that I cannot watch my children 24 hours a day and protect them from making bad decisions.

Again, if you are selling a harmful product (with potentially dire consequences) to my children (legally), I MAY NOT BE AWARE of the fact that it is harmful (if I'm even aware of the fact that my kids bought it), so how can I protect my children from something I am unaware is dangerous?

Just require that the manufacturer INFORM people of the dangers, and restrict it's purchase to people over 21 (which we all agree should be the minimum age of use, correct?). Like it or not, there ARE times when the government is necessary. This is one of them.

And kingjames, according to Erowid.org: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ephedrine/ephedrine_law.shtml

Ephedrine is approved by the FDA as a drug for human consumption, but because it is a precursor for several scheduled drugs (methamphetamine & methcathinone), it is highly regulated. Possession of ephedrine is legal, but sales of large quantities are monitored and many states heavily regulate the forms and methods in which it is sold.

The FDA banned the sale of ephedrine in over-the-counter dietary supplements in early 2004. See FDA's February 2004 Announcement. Although the ban was temporarily in question when a federal judge ruled it invalid, the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the FDA; as of August 2006, a ban is in place on the sale of any product containing ephedra-alkaloids and ephedrine that has not been specifically approved by the FDA.

As of 2006, retailers in the United States are required to collect the signatures of every person purchasing pseudoephedrine-containing products in log books and view a photo ID for every purchase of any product for which the entire box contains more than 60 mg of pseudoephedrine. The "Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005" provides for criminal penalties for non compliance and limits the maximum amount an individual can buy to 9 grams of pseudoephedrine per any 30 day period:
This makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail more than 9 grams during a 30 day period (of which no more than 7.5 grams can be imported by private or commercial carrier or the Postal Service).

U.S. STATE LAW #
California #
Bans sale of "ephedrine group alkaloids" (ephedrine and pseudoephedrine) in over-the-counter non-medical herbal supplements (approved medicines still allowed to contain the chemicals) after Jan 1, 2003. (SB-582 amending Article 4.5 Section 110423.100)
Illinois #
Bans purchase of more than 7.5g per month by any individual. See Public Act 094-0694 and Methamphetamine Precursor Control Act.
Iowa #
Some control of OTC sales (specifics not known).
Missouri #
Some control of OTC sales (specifics not known).
New York #
Some control of OTC sales, ID required and entered into a database with 4 pseudoephedrine-containing products allowed per month per person. (unconfirmed) (thanks M)
North Carolina #
Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine as of Jan 1 2006 are only sold 2 bottles at a time by licensed pharmacist, requires ID, and signing a form saying you may only buy two bottles per month total. See 2005 HOUSE BILL 248. (thanks lv, B) (last updated July 16 2010)
Oklahoma #
On Apr 6, 2004, Oklahoma became the first state to schedule pseudoephedrine, placing it into Schedule V. According to Microgram Bulletin (vol 37, June 2004), consumers are now required to present valid photo identification and sign a logbook to purchase pseudoephedrine. The law also limits the amount a person can buy or possess to 9 grams.
Oregon #
In August, 2005, Oregon governor Kulongoski signed a new law intended to reduce methamphetamine production in home 'labs' by moving ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine into Oregon Schedule III and making simple possession of more than 300 tablets of pseudoephedrine a crime. See Oregon House Bill 2485.
Texas #
In 2005, Texas ammended the Health and Safety Code to require strict controls on the storage and sale of products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and norpseudoephidrine (see Title 10, Chapter 486). In 2006 some state requirements were superceded by more stringent federal controls. The state of Texas currenlty requires that purchasers prove that they are 16 or older with a photo ID, and their names and amount of purchase are recorded. Texas limits the amount that can be purchased in a single day (3.6 g of the base product) or month (9 g). Pharmacies are responsible for tracking and reporting how much is sold to individuals.

It is controlled in just about every sense of the word, minus being OFFICIALY scheduled in the Controlled Substances Act. It is, however, effectively a Controlled Substance in many states. This is not what I am looking for with our PH/DS however. All I want is that retailers require that you be over 21 to purchase, and the manufacturer to give us proper risk assessments on the labels! That's all! I'm not asking for a lot here! But unfortunately, if the retailers/manufacturers are willing to allow/encourage children to buy these products, as well as not properly inform them of what they're taking, then they need to be regulated. Simple as that.

AND I AGREE THESE SUBSTANCES SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL, but rather, regulated!

 

[diablosho]

If you Do put it in your body and something bad happens - then it sucks to be you. A lot of people are going to learn from your mistake - and they won't make the same one. Others, who are stupid - won't learn from your mistakes and will repeat them.

This is LIFE.

Unknowingly taking steroids (without even knowing what steroids are/what they do) is not exactly the same thing as skateboarding off a ramp on your roof into the tree in your front yard! In order to adopt your reasoning (which I do in many cases), I have to have a reasonable expectation that they knew what they were doing was stupid. In the case of dietary supplements containing steroids (and not being labelled as such in even a REMOTE way) being sold to minors, I just don't see a correlation.

These companies were taking advantage of our ignorance (putting our health at risk) to make as much money as possible until the word got out about them. That just seems dirty to me. True, people would learn from your mistake. But how many people will be irreparably harmed by something that they purchased legally, over-the-counter, and had EVERY RIGHT TO BELIEVE was safe?
--Brian

 

[TheDarkHalf]

Bottom line is we've seen bans before, and we'll see them time and time again. And companies will continue to come out with new products that circumvent the law and find the loop holes.

Until I see a press release from the FDA that states as of MM/DD/YYYY the following substances are schedule III....I'm not too concerned

 

[RickRock13]

Bottom line is we've seen bans before, and we'll see them time and time again. And companies will continue to come out with new products that circumvent the law and find the loop holes.

Until I see a press release from the FDA that states as of MM/DD/YYYY the following substances are schedule III....I'm not too concerned

I'm not too worried about it either. We always see this type of news pop up every so often with nothing that comes of it. SD will be eventually banned I'm sure along with other designers and PHs. In the meantime, I will continue to build my growing stash :sgrin:

 

[HondaV65]

If Bayer was selling Cyanide as Tylenol, would you expect the government to stop them, or would it be the consumer's risk?

Please man - that's just pure hyperbole - since Bayer never has sold Cyanide as Tylenol - and never would. Why would they do that? Real Tylenol probably isn't as hard or as expensive to make as cyanide. That - and as a company - they're in the business to make money and that takes repeat customers - a product that kills customers kind of throws cold water on that don't you think?

Look - I've already answered your questions. You should really examine your political leanings - because your more liberal (big government) than conservative.

Parents have the final say on how their kids are brought up - that's my position. I've never asked for the government to subsidize me as a Dad and "police" my kid's health - I take care of that. My kids don't buy things on the internet. My kids don't do drugs - because I'm involved in their upbringing. I got two kids grown - one with Master's in Geology and she does oil exploration for Chevron. The other is an IT Professional. They are both solid citizens and pay taxes.

Anyone who knows me - knows I'm not a particularly talented individual - and not even the best Dad out there. If I can do this with my wife and raise kids like this - anyone can.

The government is not the solution my friend. The solution is liberty and the common sense of the individual.

 

[diablosho]

So because I don't believe that a manufacturer should have free reign to sell anabolic steroids to minors...I'm a liberal? Wow. I'm NOT a libertarian, I do know that. But I assure you, my belief that sometimes the government is necessary to protect an individual does not constitute a liberal bias. And my Tylenol argument was OBVIOUSLY a metaphore (and cyanide is actually pretty easy to make).

And your argument about kids not doing drugs if their parents are involved in BS. My parents were HEAVILY involved in my life, and somehow I still found time to do PLENTY of drugs. Did you follow your kids to school everyday, sit through their classes, eat lunch with them, go to work with them in the summer, etc. etc.? Because there are PLENTY of times where you are simply INCAPABLE of protecting your kids from making potentially life-altering mistakes. YOU can believe that children should be free to take anabolic steroids if you wish, but I do not. And that there is where we differ. Children need to be protected from their curiosity (and perceived invulnerabilities) at the end of the day, and with as many kids that have been taking this stuff as there has been, a link in the chain of responsibility is OBVIOUSLY broken. YOU may have been a SPECTACULAR dad who hawked over his children from birth until they were 21, and made absolutely sure they never did ANYTHING you told them not to do (which I'm fairly certain is an inaccurate statement), but the majority of people do not hold that kind of control of their teenage children, and as such, there needs to be restrictions on what their teens can legally purchase.
--Brian

 

[B5150]

Please man - that's just pure hyperbole - since Bayer never has sold Cyanide as Tylenol - and never would. Why would they do that? Real Tylenol probably isn't as hard or as expensive to make as cyanide. That - and as a company - they're in the business to make money and that takes repeat customers - a product that kills customers kind of throws cold water on that don't you think?

Look - I've already answered your questions. You should really examine your political leanings - because your more liberal (big government) than conservative.

Parents have the final say on how their kids are brought up - that's my position. I've never asked for the government to subsidize me as a Dad and "police" my kid's health - I take care of that. My kids don't buy things on the internet. My kids don't do drugs - because I'm involved in their upbringing. I got two kids grown - one with Master's in Geology and she does oil exploration for Chevron. The other is an IT Professional. They are both solid citizens and pay taxes.

Anyone who knows me - knows I'm not a particularly talented individual - and not even the best Dad out there. If I can do this with my wife and raise kids like this - anyone can.

The government is not the solution my friend. The solution is liberty and the common sense of the individual.

Your minor kids will be adults one day. They may buy things on the internet and they may do drugs. You need to remember - the NOT yet! As for grown children - they don't go and tell Daddy one day "I do drugs Dad." Solid citizens with Master's Degrees buy things on the internet and do drugs.

You are missing his point. If I buy something I am entitled to believe it is what it claims to be without it having a potentially harmful illegal steroid or other substance in it. The industry manufacturers have failed to comply with DSHEA and fail to self regulate. Therefore you get someone, an entity, that will do it for them.

Suppose you fill your tank with what you believe to be unleaded gasoline and have done so for years. One day find out that Chevron quality control process has been allowing an unregulated and unapproved compound in your fuel that is harming your vehicle and it has shortened its life. I promise you will be up in arms with Chevron and want to know why your government allowed this to happen.

You wanted regular unleaded gasoline. You paid for regular unleaded gasoline. You did not get what you paid for. You not only got a contaminated product from an unscrupulous corporation but it also destroyed your engine. You were innocent. You had no way of knowing. You had no reason to assume there was risk. You were a victim. You will be pissed.

 

[MidwestBeast]

Your minor kids will be adults one day. They may buy things on the internet and they may do drugs. You need to remember - the NOT yet! As for grown children - they don't go and tell Daddy one day "I do drugs Dad." Solid citizens with Master's Degrees buy things on the internet and do drugs.

You are missing his point. If I buy something I am entitled to believe it is what it claims to be without it having a potentially harmful illegal steroid or other substance in it. The industry manufacturers have failed to comply with DSHEA and fail to self regulate. Therefore you get someone, an entity, that will do it for them.

Suppose you fill your tank with what you believe to be unleaded gasoline and have done so for years. One day find out that Chevron quality control process has been allowing an unregulated and unapproved compound in your fuel that is harming your vehicle and it has shortened its life. I promise you will be up in arms with Chevron and want to know why your government allowed this to happen.

You wanted regular unleaded gasoline. You paid for regular unleaded gasoline. You did not get what you paid for. You not only got a contaminated product from an unscrupulous corporation but it also destroyed your engine. You were innocent. You had no way of knowing. You had no reason to assume there was risk. You were a victim. You will be pissed.

I agree with this.

I also agree, though, that the government shouldn't reach in to make so many things illegal.

Virtually (if not) everything should be legal and it should also be advertised/marketed truthfully.

 

[Delta Force]

This really sucks.. I hate to see SD getting banned.. its the only PH worth taking IMO.. so, what clones are out there worth picking up.. I need to stock up!!!

 

[jbryand101b]

alpha mass, dplex, pmag, pstanz, furza-a, hdrol fo sho.

 

[kingjameskjf]

Ephedrine is approved by the FDA as a drug for human consumption, but because it is a precursor for several scheduled drugs (methamphetamine & methcathinone), it is highly regulated. Possession of ephedrine is legal, but sales of large quantities are monitored and many states heavily regulate the forms and methods in which it is sold.

From your own quote. It is NOT controlled, it is regulated, hence it still being OTC and legal to possess. Big difference. Many states don't allow LARGE quantities to be possessed to keep them from being used to make controlled drugs, not to keep you from using ephedrine.

 

[diablosho]

From your own quote. It is NOT controlled, it is regulated, hence it still being OTC and legal to possess. Big difference. Many states don't allow LARGE quantities to be possessed to keep them from being used to make controlled drugs, not to keep you from using ephedrine

As a counter-example, codeine IS a controlled substance, and yet (in most states) you can still purchase it over the counter in small quantities (Cheratussin), so I'm not following your logic... Ephedrine and Codeine are treated similarly, yet one is TECHNICALLY Controlled and the other is not (the only difference being technicalities).

And I was not using the term controlled to mean the TECHNICAL term, but rather, they CONTROL the amount you can purchase, dosages, and the acceptable reasons for sale, as well as what manners of sale are allowable (i.e. not in dietary supplements, herbal formulas, etc.) Thus, many aspects ARE CONTROLLED (although TECHNICALLY not a FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED Controlled Substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act)! Let's not split hairs here.
--Brian

 

[fightbackhxc]

subbed