All about the new steroid laws by Rick Collins

Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
The New Designer Steroid Bill and YOU:
Questions and Answers with Rick Collins

Q: What is the “Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012”?
A: It’s a Senate Bill (SB 3431) introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and referred to the Judiciary Committee. If passed by Congress, it will amend the Controlled Substances Act to more aggressively regulate steroidal substances being sold as dietary supplement ingredients. The clear intent is to remove remaining “prohormone” products from the market and prevent new ones from being introduced. The bill would take such past or present supplement products as ATD, 6-oxo, 6-bromo, Furazadrol, Halodrol, Havoc, and Tren and legally classify them as anabolic steroids and Controlled Substances. Here’s what Sen. Whitehouse said in introducing the bill on July 25[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012:
“… I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in introducing the bipartisan Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012. This measure will help keep American children and families safe from dangerous designer drugs that masquerade as healthy dietary supplements. This legislation is based on Senator Specter’s work in the previous Congress, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.
Doctors and scientists have long recognized the health hazards of non-medical use of anabolic steroids. For that reason, Congress has previously acted to ensure that these drugs are listed as controlled substances. Nonetheless, according to investigative reporting and Congressional testimony, a loophole in current law allows for designer anabolic steroids to easily be found on the Internet, in gyms, and even in retail stores.
Designer steroids are produced by reverse engineering existing illegal steroids and then slightly modifying the chemical composition, so that the resulting product is not on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s, DEA, list of controlled substances. When taken by consumers, designer steroids can cause serious medical consequences, including liver injury and increased risk of heart attack and stroke. They may also lead to psychological effects such as aggression, hostility, and addiction.
These designer products can be even more dangerous than traditional steroids because they are often untested, produced from overseas raw materials, and manufactured without quality controls. As one witness testified at a Crime Subcommittee hearing in the last Congress, ‘all it takes to cash in on the storefront steroid craze is a credit card to import raw products from China or India where most of the raw ingredients come from, the ability to pour powders into a bottle or pill and a printer to create shiny, glossy labels.’
The unscrupulous actors responsible for manufacturing and selling these products often market them with misleading and inaccurate labels. That can cause consumers who are looking for a healthy supplement--not just elite athletes, but also high school students, law enforcement personnel, and mainstream Americans--to be deceived into taking these dangerous products.
Loopholes in existing law allow these dangerous designer steroids to evade regulation. Under current law, in order to classify new substances as steroids, the DEA must complete a burdensome and time-consuming series of chemical and pharmacological testing. As a DEA official testified before Congress: ‘in the time that it takes DEA to administratively schedule an anabolic steroid used in a dietary supplement product, several new products can enter the market to take the place of those products.’'
The Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012 would quickly protect consumers from these dangerous products. First, it would immediately place 27 known designer anabolic steroids on the list of controlled substances. Second, it would grant the DEA authority to temporarily schedule new designer steroids on the controlled substances list, so that if bad actors develop new variations, these products can be removed from the market. Third, it would create new penalties for importing, manufacturing, or distributing anabolic steroid’s [sic] under false labels.
Senator Hatch and I have worked closely with a range of consumer and industry organizations to ensure that this legislation would not interfere with consumers’ access to legitimate dietary supplements. I am pleased that the measure has been endorsed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the Alliance for Natural Health, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the American Herbal Products Association, the Natural Products Association, the Consumer Health Products Association, and the United Natural Products Alliance.
I thank these organizations for their support, and look forward to working with them, with Senator Hatch, and with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to enact this common sense measure into law.”
Q: Is the bill specific in naming the substances to be added to the list of anabolic steroids?
A: The “Discussion Draft” of the bill that I reviewed would specifically add 27 chemical compounds to the list of substances defined as anabolic steroids in Title 21 of the U.S. Code [21 USC 802(41)]. The bill presents the chemical nomenclature for these substances. Some of the chemical names listed, according to steroidal supplement guru Patrick Arnold, contain errors or refer to compounds that may actually not exist. But any minor mistakes aside, it seems that the drafters of the bill extensively canvassed the supplement market and perhaps even the Internet message boards in an effort to identify and specifically name as many compounds as possible. This isn’t the first time that Congress has expanded the list of anabolic steroids. The original list, compiled in 1990, was amended in 2004 to include androstenedione and a variety of other steroidal products. The DEA later issued a Final Rule (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-12-04/pdf/E9-28572.pdf), effective January 2010, classifying three more compounds as anabolic steroids (boldione, desoxymethyltestosterone, and 19-nor-4,9(10)-androstadienedione, along with their salts, esters and ethers). Then the DEA last year published a notice of proposed rulemaking to add yet two more steroidal compounds, prostanozol and methasterone (marketed as Superdrol), along with their salts, esters and ethers, to the list. The Final Rule on these two was issued on July 30[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-30/pdf/2012-18495.pdf), effective August 29[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012. This new bill just follows up by adding a whole bunch more (although now a moot point, it includes the recently scheduled prostanozol and Superdrol) … and by design, misses very few.
Q: What about steroidal substances that are not on the list?
A: The bill changes the way unlisted steroidal compounds are dealt with. It says that “a drug or hormonal substance (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone) that is not listed … and is derived from, or has a chemical structure substantially similar to, 1 or more
[listed] anabolic steroids [is considered an anabolic steroid] if … [it] has been created or manufactured with the intent of [promoting muscle growth or having pharmacological effects like testosterone or] has been, or is intended to be, marketed or otherwise promoted [to suggest it will promote muscle growth or have pharmacological effects like testosterone]. Notice that there’s no proof requirement that the substance actually promote muscle growth or act like testosterone pharmacologically – only that it’s created, manufactured, marketed or promoted with the intent of doing so. So, for supplement industry purposes, a company that markets any product that is derived from or has substantial chemical similarity to a listed anabolic steroid and is also created or marketed to build muscle or have a pharmacological effect like testosterone is marketing an anabolic steroid. An interesting question arises in the following theoretical scenario: Company A markets an ingredient derived from a listed anabolic steroid for health and wellness purposes, and the ingredient has neither anabolic nor androgenic effects. Company B markets the same ingredient but makes the claim, falsely, that the ingredient builds muscle. If Company B is prosecuted and convicted for marketing the ingredient as an anabolic steroid, where does this leave Company A? While it would seem reasonable that the ingredient is an anabolic steroid only with respect to Company B, the issue is not addressed in the language of the bill.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Q: Are there any exemptions provided in the bill?
A: Yes. Unlisted steroidal compounds that are herbs or botanicals are exempted. So are concentrates, metabolites, and extracts of an herb or botanical, or a constituent isolated directly from an herb or botanical. This provision was drafted as an acknowledgement to the current position of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) articulated with respect to New Dietary Ingredients (NDI’s): that a compound is a “constituent” of a botanical only if it is isolated directly from it, and not if it is instead synthetically created in a lab. The bill further connects the Controlled Substances Act with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (“DSHEA,” a part of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) by requiring that any exempted substance must be a “dietary ingredient” under DSHEA. And the bill puts the burden of DSHEA compliance on the marketer, by providing that anyone “claiming the benefit of an exemption [has] the burden of going forward with the evidence.” In other words, somebody arrested for selling an anabolic steroid whose defense is that it is an exempted constituent would have the burden of showing evidence of DSHEA compliance.
Q: Does the bill make it easier to add new unlisted substances to the list?
A: It does, by amending a different section of Title 21 [21 USC 811] to provide a fast-track for scheduling. The Attorney General may issue a temporary order, to take effect 30 days after publication, adding a substance to the list if it meets certain criteria. The temporary order “is not subject to judicial review” and a permanent order could be simultaneously sought. But the bill also provides that an unlisted steroidal substance can be considered an anabolic steroid if it’s determined to meet the criteria of an anabolic steroid “in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding arising under this Act.” So, while the Attorney General has the power to declare substances to be anabolic steroids through the rulemaking process, unlisted substances can nevertheless be considered to be anabolic steroids without prior rulemaking notice if it’s proven in a court of law, such as during a criminal prosecution of a supplement company or its principals. But the bill also makes it easier for the Attorney General to add new compounds because it changes the criteria and tosses out the rigorous scientific inquiry currently required.
Q: How would the criteria for administrative action change under the proposed new law?
A: Under current requirements, the DEA has to extensively examine peer-reviewed published literature and sometimes even undertake its own pharmacological assay studies to determine if a compound has androgenic and anabolic activity similar to testosterone. This can be a huge, lengthy, complicated endeavor, and the DEA has been far from wild about it. For example, back in September 2009, Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator at DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, testified before the Crime Subcommittee at the hearing (“Body Building Products and Hidden Steroids: Enforcement Barriers”) referenced this month by Sen. Whitehouse in introducing the bill. Mr. Rannazzisi expressed the hurdles imposed by the current law, citing as an example the difficult process of scheduling boldione, desoxymethyltestosterone, and 19-nor-4,9(10)-androstadienedione which was, at that time, in its final stages. He also testified that a review of three (3) additional compounds – methyldrostanolone (methasterone), prostanozol, and adrenosterone (misspelled adrenostreone in his written statement) – had begun. But although three compounds were reviewed, only two were scheduled. Neither the notice of proposed rulemaking in November 2011 nor the Final Rule issued in July 2012 referenced adrenosterone, a compound sold under the name “11-oxo.” Were there problems proving some aspect of the requirements? We don’t know, and the implications from this are open to debate (note also that the substance is also not listed among the specific compounds in the new bill). In any event, under the new definition of an anabolic steroid, the process for scheduling is much easier. If the compound is derived from, or has a chemical structure substantially similar to a listed anabolic steroids, and it’s not an estrogen, progestin, corticosteroid or DHEA, then it’s considered an anabolic steroid merely if it’s been created or manufactured with the intent of being anabolic or androgenic or if it’s marketed or promoted to suggest that it’s anabolic or androgenic. The new definition offers an enormous reduction in the DEA’s burden to schedule a new steroid.
Q: Weren’t many of these supplement products already illegal under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?
A: Yes. Many of these substances were synthetically created compounds and did not meet the criteria to be sold as dietary supplements under DSHEA. Since they were not DSHEA compliant, they were unapproved and mislabeled “drugs” and the FDA had the authority to investigate and bring charges for federal prosecution. Until recently, however, many in the supplement industry didn’t understand the criminal penalties for non-DSHEA compliance, or didn’t take the threat seriously. But that has changed since a number of sports nutrition companies were prosecuted for selling prohormone products in the wake of the execution of a search warrant on a distributor’s Boise, Idaho facility back in 2009. Some of the same substances now being added to the list of anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act were already declared illegal drugs under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA) ... and the companies selling them were prosecuted federally and convicted. The new bill, however, gives the DEA – often viewed as more aggressive at enforcement than the FDA – the authority to take action. Also, by classifying these substances under the Controlled Substances Act, the new bill escalates the severity of potential punishments.
Q: What does the bill say about sentences for steroid crimes?
A: The bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to “review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines.” The last time Congress directed this, the Commission brought the hammer down and greatly escalated the punishments for steroid trafficking crimes by re-calculating the way steroids were quantified. As of 2006, injectable and oral steroids became quantified for punishment in a 1:1 ratio to other Schedule III drugs, resulting in a twenty-fold measurement increase for injectable steroid units and a whopping fifty-fold increase for oral steroid units. One “unit” of an oral steroid became one pill, tablet or capsule rather than fifty; one unit of a liquid steroid was reduced to .5ml rather than 10ml, and steroids in other forms (“e.g., patch, topical cream, aerosol”) were to be reasonably estimated based on a consideration of 25mg as one unit. We don’t know exactly what the Commission will do if this new bill passes, but the bill specifically directs that for steroid products where dosage cannot be readily ascertained, such as powders or topical creams, that “the sentence shall be determined based on the entire weight of the mixture or substance.” So, a person trafficking a kilogram of pure testosterone powder would be at the same federal sentencing level as the person who was selling a product that contained a small or even trace amount of testosterone.
Q: What does the bill say about the way products are labeled?
A: The bill introduces a whole new theory by which to prosecute these cases by making it a crime to import, export, manufacture, distribute, dispense, sell, offer to sell, or possess with intent to manufacture or sell any anabolic steroid, or any product containing an anabolic steroid, unless it bears a label clearly identifying the anabolic steroid by accepted (IUPAC) nomenclature. This provision would apply to manufacturers who use deceptive or “creative” ingredient labeling to conceal that the product is an anabolic steroid. It would also apply to distributors and retailers who know, intend, or have reasonable cause to believe that the product contains an anabolic steroid. Criminal penalties can be up to 10 years imprisonment and massive fines (up to $2.5 million on corporations). Civil penalties can be up to $500,000 per product violation for importers, exporters, manufacturers and distributors. Even retailers can be hit with a $25,000 penalty per product violation (and each package size, form, or differently labeled item is a separate product).
Q: What impact would this bill have on consumers?
A: The bill would have a huge impact on consumers. While marketing prohormones that are currently illegal under DSHEA and the FD&CA subject the marketers to criminal sanctions, consumers don’t face charges. Simple possession itself is not illegal. All that changes when a compound becomes classified as a controlled substance. By reclassifying these compounds into controlled substances, this bill criminalizes the consumers as well as the marketers (the DEA’s Final Rule on prostanozol and Superdrol, once effective, will do this on those two compounds). Being in simple possession of a compound that is a controlled substance is a federal crime – a federal misdemeanor that carries with it up to a year of incarceration. But it likely won’t stop there. If the bill passes, it’s quite probable that individual states will view what Congress did as an important step in protecting the public, especially children, and will seek to amend their own laws to be consistent with the new federal law. In some states, though, simple possession of an anabolic steroid is a felony, not a misdemeanor, and in those states the simple possession of any of these compounds would be a felony. If states follow suit, a person caught during a car stop with a single capsule of 6-bromo, for example, would be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony (depending on his or her state’s law). An old bottle of Superdrol sitting in a gym bag would be like illegally having a bottle of Vicodin.
Q: Do you think this bill will achieve the intended purposes of Congress?
A: Unlike the poorly conceived and drafted 2004 amendment to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, this bill shows an investment of considerable effort and thought. It’s clear that the intent behind it is to eradicate steroidal ingredients from the retail supplement market. This bill has the potential to accomplish that. It even requires the Administrator of the DEA to keep Congress in the loop by reporting to them every 2 years on what new steroids have been scheduled. Of course, the bigger picture is unclear. Will consumer demand for steroidal substances that may build muscle disappear? Or will the reclassification of these items and their removal from the dietary supplement market lead to the creation of a black market for them … or to an increased demand for the traditional pharmaceutical anabolic steroids already on the black market? The realities of demand and supply and our experience with alcohol Prohibition would suggest that legislative efforts like this one don’t entirely eliminate problems but instead may push them underground. Time will tell.
Q: What do you predict for this bill?
A: Senator Hatch is viewed as a stalwart advocate for dietary supplements. So, when he sponsors legislation to restrict the industry, many in Congress will see it as something that sorely needs to be done. The bill has received the overwhelming support of the large industry trade groups and there is no organized opposition. Unless there’s some unexpected curveball tossed out, or Earth is hit by an asteroid, there’s a high likelihood the bill will pass. For future updates and analysis, visit www.supplementcounsel.com and www.steroidlaw.com or follow me on Twitter (@RickCollinsEsq) and at Facebook.com/RickCollinsOnline.

Rick Collins, JD, CSCS [www.rickcollins.com] is the lawyer that members of the bodybuilding community and nutritional supplement industry turn to when they need legal help or representation. He and his firm represent dietary supplement companies nationwide, and he has personally defended steroid criminal charges from coast to coast. He can be reached at 516-294-0300. [© Rick Collins, 2012. All rights reserved. For informational purposes only, not to be construed as legal or medical advice.]
 
sidoious

sidoious

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Senator Orrin Hatch must be naturally ripped. I could have sworn those guns of his were gassed up.
 

henryv

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
The UK has had laws covering this stuff since 1996. It's almost unbelievable that it's taken the US 16 years longer to effectively legislate against designer steroids.
 

Stupes

Guest
The UK has had laws covering this stuff since 1996. It's almost unbelievable that it's taken the US 16 years longer to effectively legislate against designer steroids.
Agreed. The drug laws are set up very inefficiently. It literally takes an act of Congress to update them.

But the "War on Drugs" in the U.S. has always been reactionary and inept.
 
SpicedCider

SpicedCider

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
If these guys ban my xenoandrogens, I'm protesting in D.C.
 
san731

san731

Member
Awards
0
so on to the real question...what are these 27 specifically named compounds and how long do I have to max out my credit cards on them?
 
broda

broda

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
so on to the real question...what are these 27 specifically named compounds and how long do I have to max out my credit cards on them?
It hasn't been passed yet so...a little bit still.
 
SpicedCider

SpicedCider

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
So based on the write-up, I gather that DHEA derivatives (in addition to standard DHEA) are not included in the ban? That sounds kind of unusual, especially since some of the derivatives do convert to testosterone and even nandrolone (I.e., 19-nor-DHEA).
 
broda

broda

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
So based on the write-up, I gather that DHEA derivatives (in addition to standard DHEA) are not included in the ban? That sounds kind of unusual, especially since some of the derivatives do convert to testosterone and even nandrolone (I.e., 19-nor-DHEA).
Not directly but they can be banned fairly easily if they wanted to. The wording makes it so that they can easily ban any substance that promotes muscle growth "similar" to that of test.
 
SpicedCider

SpicedCider

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Not directly but they can be banned fairly easily if they wanted to. The wording makes it so that they can easily ban any substance that promotes muscle growth "similar" to that of test.
Then what if some plant-derived substance that causes DA GAINZ is isolated which happens to promote muscle growth? Wouldn't the banning of a plant-derived compound conflict with the statute that a substance naturally occurring in nature is legal to sell as a dietary supplement (think about the DMAA debacle)?
 
broda

broda

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Then what if some plant-derived substance that causes DA GAINZ is isolated which happens to promote muscle growth? Wouldn't the banning of a plant-derived compound conflict with the statute that a substance naturally occurring in nature is legal to sell as a dietary supplement (think about the DMAA debacle)?
They're exempt.
 
broda

broda

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Actually...

The 2012 Act would exclude herbs and other botanicals, a concentrate, metabolite, or extract of, or a constituent isolated directly from herbs or botanicals that are dietary ingredients for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
They may be able to get away with banning them due to the bolded statement anyway.
 
JoeySon

JoeySon

Banned
Awards
0
This is depressing for somebody who's just starting to enter the game in the last couple years..natty gains? Where's the fun? :frustrate:
 
Lhns2

Lhns2

Active member
Awards
0
Wasn't the whole supplement industry mainly started in Utah ?

Sent from my super duper VS920 4G using Am.com app!
 
mich29

mich29

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
good to see you in these parts patrick.great post.I miss the days of old debating ph/ds .it was good while it lasted
 
supermanjow

supermanjow

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Good thing I'm getting closer to 30 and hrt is getting to be within reach!
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
So based on the write-up, I gather that DHEA derivatives (in addition to standard DHEA) are not included in the ban? That sounds kind of unusual, especially since some of the derivatives do convert to testosterone and even nandrolone (I.e., 19-nor-DHEA).
no, just dhea. some may want to interpret dhea as meaning all double bond isomers of dhea but trust me, the intent of the law is just dhea.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Then what if some plant-derived substance that causes DA GAINZ is isolated which happens to promote muscle growth? Wouldn't the banning of a plant-derived compound conflict with the statute that a substance naturally occurring in nature is legal to sell as a dietary supplement (think about the DMAA debacle)?
any substance that is not chemically similar to anabolic steroids will not be covered by this bill

additionally, a plant extract that has anabolic steroids in it should be exempt as well. good luck finding one though
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Wasn't the whole supplement industry mainly started in Utah ?

Sent from my super duper VS920 4G using Am.com app!

this bill has big support from the nutritional supplement industry mainstream. designer steroids has been like a cancer to them and they now can cut that out
 

laserbluess

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
oh no, what will we do without legal oral steroids? i refuse to go back to being natural! (sarcasm there). trained for 4 years without them and made great progress, no reason to think i can't continue to make gains naturally, just takes longer lol. plus, TRT is always an option down the road.
 
SpicedCider

SpicedCider

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
no, just dhea. some may want to interpret dhea as meaning all double bond isomers of dhea but trust me, the intent of the law is just dhea.
I know that this is asking you to take a shot in the dark, but do you personally foresee the popular DHEA isomers (e.g., 1-DHEA, 4-DHEA, 19-nor-DHEA, etc.) actually being banned, or is there a high likelihood that the guhment will leave them alone?

Because if the xenoandrogens don't work, then those are my only hope for something legal...
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
I know that this is asking you to take a shot in the dark, but do you personally foresee the popular DHEA isomers (e.g., 1-DHEA, 4-DHEA, 19-nor-DHEA, etc.) actually being banned, or is there a high likelihood that the guhment will leave them alone?

Because if the xenoandrogens don't work, then those are my only hope for something legal...

they were not listed per se. However the text in that bill leaves them open to being banned quite swiftly once that bill becomes law
 
Mitch5

Mitch5

Member
Awards
0
It's crazy to see them just wipe the market out, things we have seen for years and which have been used safely by many gone. Now people will just find new ways of getting their hands on them just like with aas. This bill is useless if they think they are "protecting" people. The workout world would be a better place if they would just make serms OTC and educate people more then make things ppl will use and get in shady places as a mystery substance with 0 knowledge of how to use. Think of the children!!!
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Pretty much.
yeah except the max lmg is a 3-methoxy (or it might be a 3,3-dimethoxy)

u cant have a hydroxy there cuz it would immediately become 3-one
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Hey at least you will have less teenagers purchasing this stuff - which leads to supplement companies being sued....So I would say this is good thing for the supplement companies.
 

hyperCat

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Straight DHEA is not banned.
There was an AM member a while back that apparently cycled straight DHEA in large doses along with an AI, and he claimed he got good results. Seems like he was taking ~600mg of DHEA daily along with some ATD or bromo. Would this even work? Seems like a crap shoot. I'll see if I can find that post...
 
KenTheEagle

KenTheEagle

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
This makes me angry, first of all, i hope they also show a few isolated cases of people who messed theire lives by DS... because i have not seen a single case, probably i am an ignorant just as millions of people who use em, now what i dont understand is:

if theyre problem is to ban DSs because they are labeled as dietary supplements, then what happens if they label it as designer steroids?, problem solved? (i know this may sound stupid, but they are making arguments to look like that).

that being said, is not like they can dissapear the raw materials as no one can dissapear tobacco or alcohol, wich kills millions, and yes, many other countries will still produce em, for so many reasons including sports (wich bring TONS OF MONEY TO THE COUNTRIES), ect. so what are they going to do by banning reputable sources? putting us on higher risks with UGL? if that so, it is not a smart move IMO, they only doing more harm than good.

now for what i can see through all my findings, DS's are not the only target, the target are ALL STEROIDS, in fact most of steroids are no longer produced by reputable labs due to this, so whats the real goal here? many people has to go with UGL due to this, now i wonder if our only solution would be UGL? why not letting reputable laboratories to still manufacturate em?, its safer... i mean, we can take alcohol but not steroids? kind of ilogic IMO.

Now its a huge coincidence this act is being pronounced now when the olympic games are on track

All in all i dont agree with any single statement of theyr "control act", and if they are going to ban every single solution to us treating us like little kids... i hope they are sincere enough to regulate the elite athletes, actors, models, ect. (all of wich genereates millions of bucks every year)... because if they are ok with it, it would turn in the most disgusting hypocrecy, i really dont se any logic in this "control act", when they could be better solutions to deal with something that is already circulating in the world.

all this makes me think, that these "control act" only wants us to be unhealthy, and be dependant of toxic expensive meds, so we are under control and we consume them... theres a lot of alarming stuff out there, from fast food factories, to extremely harmful chemicals we have a terrible problem of obesity and more diseases coming, fertility problems and the list goes on, so if they want to save us as they want to look like heroes, they should let steroids alone and take control on more important things.


The more i see this stupid statementts the more i think about 2 possible causes:

IGNORANCE from theyre part, they dont understand how steroids work, they dont understand how it helps millions of men around the world and they dont understand that they are safe, i mean, we;ve dealing with steroids from LONG TIME AGO since WW2 i believe... we havent found a single case of people "ruining" theyre lifes because of steroids... so again, i gues its IGNORANCE... if they could read a lil bit on the subject... if they can regulate the compounds, it is a must to understand the facts and stop making wrong and unfair desitions, like a blind ignorant. it is awful that we can have more knowledge on the subject than the ones on "the top", seeing they have "the power"...

is that or

They really want to bother us, because they want to keep us behind certain line, again, making us, more and more unhealthy as time goes by (read more about wrecked hormone levels now days compared to guys in the past)... more fertility problems, more harmful chemicals.... a society dependant of 10000000 of toxic meds (wich yet are not regulated at all), ect. if thats the case, it is a shame, and people need to wake up.... whatever the reason is, i dont and will never agree with that stupid "control act"

TO THE MODS: if my post is too harsh, let me know and ill edit it, i am just sharing my opinions and my questioning to that "control act" i am pretty sure, a lot of guys would agree with me, this is what a forum is made for, primarily for discussion, but if i am going to far with this, i will edit it (is not like they are goin to read me anyways LOL
 

uubiduu

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
would be a smarter idea to first ban

-cigarettes
-vodka
-otc pain killers like paracetamol

but thats only my opinion
 
TheGnome

TheGnome

Member
Awards
0
I have yet to use my first cycle. So with this, it looks like I will stock up on a few cycles while I can legally buy them. Or I see myself waiting until I am ready; at that time, I will probably be looking to inject AAS if they are all illegal anyhow.

Lame.
 
supermanjow

supermanjow

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I definitely agree with you on the lame comment. Especially after hearing that the bulk if the supplement industry us behind this. I was happy to find out that legal alternatives to aas still existed. Now I'm going to have to find a sympathetic doc that will prescribe me some. That's not all that bad though as aas will probably be much more effective.
 
kjkriston

kjkriston

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
This will do nothing but push people to buy the UGL oils and pills that have existed since they banned those. Probably a good thing for the health of people's livers if everyone just went to run injectable cycles. Test is best!
 
Axillist

Axillist

Active member
Awards
0
Looks like August 29th is the date that SD becomes illegal to sell! Stock up!
 
broda

broda

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
SD being banned is completely separate from the Act that they're trying to pass. They're not related.
 
chil

chil

Banned
Awards
0
What is exactly being banned, are things like halo extreme, cynostane rx, being banned? i know epistane is.... how about the adro series by primordial performance being banned.... im having a hard time finding out exactly what the hecks getting pulled off shelves??
 
chil

chil

Banned
Awards
0
is it just superdrol, epi, max lmg, that are being banned or are all of our prohormones gettin ripped from our hands ?
 
broda

broda

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
DHEA products are the safest right now. Pretty much all orals, the ones that aren't on the list of 27, have the potential to be banned easily if the Act passes.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
This makes me angry, first of all, i hope they also show a few isolated cases of people who messed theire lives by DS... because i have not seen a single case, probably i am an ignorant just as millions of people who use em, now what i dont understand is:
They can show plenty of people that have failed doping testing. And there are several articles in the literature linking these to some serious medical problems in users.

Nobody with knowledge would ever say these synthetic designer hormone supplements were benign. Most are relatively safe compared to many other drugs but you will never win an argument saying they are perfectly safe and require no oversight. This is not the 1890s when anyone can sell morphine PMS tonic and cocaine laced effervescent elixirs
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
No, this targets all hormones, chemicals, anything synthetic and not found in nature that create muscle growth in anyway similar to the way anabolic steroids.
No this does not. Read it more carefully. The substance must be chemically related to anabolic steroids.
 

Similar threads


Top