Possible Prohormone Ban: Read Here!

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Well here it is. The full text of the bill in congress that would outlaw Pro Hormones


    This sticky will serve to answer all questions regarding the possible prohormone ban that has been floating in Congress. Here you will find links to the how, what, where, and why of the legislation, and what you can do about it!

     

    As promised, here is the full text of the bill that we are all dreading. WW7
    ============================== ==============

    H. R. 5564

    To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the placing of certain substances on the schedules of controlled substances, and for other purposes.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    OCTOBER 7, 2002
    Mr. SWEENEY (for himself and Mr. OSBORNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A BILL
    To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the placing of certain substances on the schedules of controlled substances, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SCHEDULING OF CERTAIN SUBSTANCES.

    (a) DEFINITION- Section 102(23) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(23)) is amended--

    (1) by striking `(A)' and inserting `(B)(i)';

    (2) by striking `(B)' and inserting `(ii);

    (3) by striking `(C)' and inserting `(iii); and

    (4) by inserting after `means a substance--' the following new subparagraph:

    `(A) which the Attorney General has found to be, and by regulation designated as being, the immediate chemical precursor of an anabolic steroid that has been scheduled as a controlled substance (hereinafter in this subparagraph referred to as `scheduled anabolic steroid') which either is a metabolite of a scheduled anabolic steroid or is transformed in the body directly into a scheduled anabolic steroid or the metabolite of a scheduled anabolic steroid; or'.

    (b) PLACEMENT ON SCHEDULE- Section 201(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811(e)) is amended--

    (1) by inserting `or for the immediate precursor of a scheduled anabolic steroid, without regard to the requirements of section 102(41), including the requirement that the substance promote muscle growth' after `section 202(b)'; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following: `However, once an immediate precursor described in section 102(23)(A) is placed in a schedule pursuant to this section, it becomes a controlled substance and the Attorney General may schedule an immediate precursor of that substance in accordance with this section.


    SEC. 2. AT-RISK EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR GRADE AND HIGH SCHOOL TEENAGERS.

    (a) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Director') is authorized to undertake education programs at the grade and high school levels to highlight the harmful effects of steroids and steroid precursor use by youths.

    (b) TARGET REQUIREMENTS- The Director shall, to the maximum extent feasible, use amounts made available to carry out subsection (a) for existing State and local antidrug programs. Furthermore, funds made available for this purpose shall be used primarily on education programs that will directly communicate with teachers, principals, coaches, as well as grade and high school children at the school level on the harmful effects of steroids and steroid precursors.

    (c) AUTHORIZATION- There is authorized to be appropriated for programs under section 2(a) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2005. [/B]
    Last edited by jweave23; 03-28-2003 at 12:41 AM.


  2. Actually, the question is whether it is a "scheduled anabolic steroid" as strictly defined in the proposed legislation.

  3. The way it reads anything that is a precursor is banned. Thus anything that is a precursor of that is banned and so on......they wrote it to their advantage to get it all!!
    •   
       


  4. This bill means that even DHEA will be banned cuz its a precursor to a precursor:

    DHEA--->Androstenedione--->Testosterone

    They're gettin everything!
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  5. I am wondering if the supplement companies will challenge this in court or better yet, lobby the crap out of congress not to be such horses a**es

  6. Patrick Arnold (and others I beleive) is planning to step up to the plate an fight this.
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  7. Originally posted by Sean
    Thanks for clarifying, DaddyR.
    Sure. The devil with these things is always in the details, and you do have to read very carefully.

    The bill only MANDATES the scheduling of:
    - precursors to ,
    - metabolites of, and
    - precursors to metabolites of
    steroids which are already scheduled.

    From THAT point it's up to the Attorney General whether he wants to schedule precursors to THOSE precursors. (He will be granted the authority to schedule them by the bill.)

    So precursors of precursors are not <u>automatically</u> "scheduled" under this bill. It is simply that they CAN be scheduled by the Attorney General.

    The Attorney General isn't QUITE stupid enough to try to schedule cholesterol, and he's not forced to do so by the bill. He's simply given the ability to do so if he wishes.

    WHICH IS BAD ENOUGH! Lots of bills are sent to committee to die a slow and painful death. Let's hope that's what will happen with this crap.

  8. Will this new legislation ban 1-Test?...

    It may sound dumb, but think about it...

    1-test is not a precursor nor is it a scheduled AAS...

    Think...
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  9. Refer to DaddyR's first post in the thread. If they consider DHT a scheduled anabolic steroid, they can effectively ban 1-test.

  10. I don't think that 1-Test is a metabolite or precursor to DHT
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  11. I remember Patrick Arnold saying that it does convert to DHT (I've had some hairloss doing 1-test) through some unknown mechanism.

  12. Originally posted by Lifeguard
    Will this new legislation ban 1-Test?...

    It may sound dumb, but think about it...

    1-test is not a precursor nor is it a scheduled AAS...

    Think...
    I will guarantee they will add this to the bill as an addendum before being voted on. They are very aware of 1-test. To much hype and talk about it!

  13. will all this crap hold up the shipment we are all so desperately waiting for from BDC? Will they hold it till the bill is passed or denied? that could take years!

  14. Originally posted by ChaseRoy
    will all this crap hold up the shipment we are all so desperately waiting for from BDC? Will they hold it till the bill is passed or denied? that could take years!
    PH sales stop when the legislation passes, not before.
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  15. Time to stock up.

  16. Originally posted by Sean
    Time to stock up.
    For me it's gonna be the following:

    1-Test
    1,4-androstadienedione
    5-Alpha androstenediol (3-alpha reductase version)
    4-Androstenediol


    about 1 kilogram of each ($$$$$$)

    either that or I'll just get the real thing:

    Fina
    Boldenone
    Masteron
    Test (any esther)
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  17. You are one RICH sonuvabitch. I can probably afford only the 1-test and maybe the 1, 4 andro. Gotta stock up on ECA, too, given what's happening with Yellow Jackets.

  18. Originally posted by Sean
    You are one RICH sonuvabitch. I can probably afford only the 1-test and maybe the 1, 4 andro. Gotta stock up on ECA, too, given what's happening with Yellow Jackets.

    I wasn't serious about the kilogram thing...


    now on the other hand... If I was rich...I'd already have it... hehe

    Nah.... Instead of the precursors...

    ...I'll do the real thing.
    Read This Book!!: Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete by William N. Taylor M.D.

  19. I've been watching as I said I would. There is basically no news. It has moved one other time in the House to another sub-committee. Nothing of consquence for now. Heres the update:

    H.R.5564
    Sponsor: Rep Sweeney, John E.(introduced 10/7/2002)
    Latest Major Action: 11/12/2002 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
    Title: To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the placing of certain substances on the schedules of controlled substances, and for other purposes.

  20. I've noticed several articles in the New York Times lately about this issue and it seems to me they are trying to get public opinion behind the banning of these substances.

    It irks me that the party that stands for individual freedom is pushing this. I wonder what the real motivation is. There are a lot more detrimental things than 1-test - what about smoking, potato chips, hamburgers, coffee, sunburns, chocolate, etc.

  21. Oh Horse ****. The damn government trying to regulate crap they don't know about again. Thanks for the post ww7. I read it awhile back and I still don't like it. Like someone said with prohibition and it got repealed. I just wish the government would really think before it acts on this. The safe think that could be considered is setting an age limit of 18 or 21 on buying ph related products if they are that damn worried about it. It just pisses me off. Better stock up.

  22. The following excerpt from the Washington Post is interesting. It is titled "New Steroids Sold Over Counter" and is talking about 1-test and steroid precursors:

    DEA officials are outraged over the emergence of these products and the blatancy of some of the advertising, but they say they are powerless to prevent their distribution unless the steroids they contain are added to the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. Because of the relative anonymity of the new steroids and the lack of medical data on their effects, DEA officials say it could take MONTHS, OR EVEN YEARS, for that to happen.

    The Food and Drug Administration says its hands are similarly tied. Under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA), it must prove a supplement is a health hazard before removing it from the market. Though extensive research shows that anabolic steroids can have a multitude of troubling side effects, because the new steroids have not specifically been studied, the same body of evidence does not exist for them.

    "What we don't have is a lot of science to help us understand if there is a safety issue," said Christine Taylor, director of the FDA's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. "We are concerned and monitoring the situation."

    HERE is a link to the whole article:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2002Dec5.html

  23. Here's another good quote from the Washington post article:

    "Where is the societal damage?" said Syntrax Innovations' Derek Cornelius, who discovered the first nandrolone precursor. "If there was a health problem, the FDA has plenty of recourse it could take in the market. We're all up in arms about something that causes acne and maybe 10,000 people use it? . . . They would have a point if people were having bad side effects, if people were dying in hospitals, but it's not happening. It's like making an issue out of something that's not."
  24. Whats the latest on the prohormone ban??


    I was wondering what the latest news was on the prohormone ban?? I havent heard anything lately and I want to stay informed. What process has to take place in order for them to be banned?

  25. I think weve got another 1-2 yrs in our blessed utopia before it comes back around again.

  26. H.R.207
    <B>Title:</B> To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the placing of certain substances on the schedules of controlled substances, and for other purposes.
    <B>Sponsor: </B>Rep Sweeney, John E. [NY-20] (introduced 1/7/2003) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <B>Cosponsors: </B>8
    <B>Latest Major Action: </B>3/6/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.</LACTD></LACT>

    ============================== =========

    The cosponsers have grown to 8 and now its in committee with the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security people! LOL! This is definatley integral to Homeland Security.

  27. Im sorry ww7 but was that statment saying that the prohormone ban is being handed over to homeland security?? I am confused.
  28. Please read this


    http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...3_857print.htm

    http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...3_858print.htm


    Copy and paste this into your browser. The PH ban thing has been kinda of quiet, well it isn't anymore. You must demand a stop to this. The only way to do this is via the USFA.biz. I URGE you to do as much as you can about getting the word out. It looks as if congress is attempting to join a PH and ephedra bill. This is not good.

    I know a lot of you have been kept out of the loop. I'll be posting other link/updates soon.
    Last edited by jweave23; 03-28-2003 at 12:17 AM.

  29. Thanks for the info Mike we appreciate it...

  30. Neither link works for me.

  31. There is now a forum at the usfa.biz website that contains updates. Quite a bit of info was posted during March. I'm afraid the news isn't good. Rick Collins plans to provide a weekly update from now on. Here is the link for the forum:

    http://www.usfa.biz/modules.php?op=m...=viewforum&f=1

  32. Originally posted by Jedi Master
    Im sorry ww7 but was that statment saying that the prohormone ban is being handed over to homeland security?? I am confused.
    &nbsp;

    LMAO! Yep, it just got handed over to the committe of homeland security for review!

  33. Mike,

    Neither link works...please repost or email me the full links and I'll get them in there.

  34. Im sorry but what in the hell do home land security and prohormones have in common? Wouldnt the FDA be handeling this situation?

  35. Man...Land of the what? The FREE? It sucks when ignorance defines the constraints of Freedom. How do prohormones have anything to do with homeland security? Are they afraid someone is take a crop duster and spray One+ all over new york city and create a metropolis full of super sized stock broker freaks?

    BigV

  36. I could care less...Id rather use real anabolics.

    But I see people here who bust there ass and don't want to pin and this ban might cause a increase in steroid useage. Its counter productive. Why not ban sales to minors.

    See thats whats ****ed up in America, smoking is way more deadly for you then godamn prohormones yet they let it flourish. WTF?

  37. Thats simple, the gov makes a TON off of cigarette sales. If it was a big enough markey, I guarantee you they would simply tax the hell out of it and move on

  38. Originally posted by wardog
    Thats simple, the gov makes a TON off of cigarette sales. If it was a big enough markey, I guarantee you they would simply tax the hell out of it and move on
    Agreed. If there was enough money for the govt to make off of PH's, this wouldn't be an issue, period.

  39. WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. lawmakers Tuesday questioned regulators about their oversight of steroid-related products sold as dietary supplements and sought information from two makers of weight-loss remedies they said were marketed for children.

    The lawmakers wrote to the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration expressing concerns that dietary supplement makers are selling products that may be more powerful than banned anabolic steroids.

    They said they are seeking information about what the FDA and DEA are doing to address the availability of pro-steroids, recently discovered substances that act similar to testosterone, and precursor steroids, which appear to combine with natural substances in the body to form an illegal steroid.

    The 1990 act that banned anabolic steroids does not specifically outlaw either substance.

    "Thus, some dietary supplement manufacturers appear to have exploited loopholes in the act and develop steroids that may, in fact, be more powerful that the ones Congress banned in 1990," members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote. The lawmakers said they were "concerned that current law may not be sufficient to empower agencies, such as FDA and DEA, to regulate or, when appropriate, ban these substances."

    The letter was signed by committee leaders including Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, the chairman, and Michigan Democrat Rep. John Dingell, the panel's leading Democrat.

    The FDA has been evaluating how to classify the steroid-related products and will respond to the lawmakers' letter, an agency spokeswoman said.

    Separately, the lawmakers said they were expanding a probe of a supplement called Skinny Pill for Kids. They wrote to Edita Kaye, president of The Skinny Pill in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, demanding answers to questions about the product's development and marketing.

    If answers to the panel's questions are not provided by April 4, "we will consider issuing a subpoena compelling such production and your appearance before this committee to answer questions," the lawmakers wrote.

    Kaye could not immediately be reached for comment.

    The lawmakers also asked Basic Research LLC in Provo, Utah, to provide documentation about the origins and safety of its product called PediaLean.

    Daniel Mowrey, director of scientific affairs for Basic Research, said PediaLean contains a natural fiber called glucomannan and is marketed for helping children ages 6 to 16 lose weight. A clinical study in Italy found the product reduced weight without significant side effects, he said.

    Mowrey said the company would respond to the lawmakers' request for information.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. What comes after the Prohormon ban
    By ironguru in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-11-2004, 10:15 PM
  2. whats going on with the prohormone ban
    By bigrich954rr in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-03-2004, 09:37 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-06-2004, 11:15 PM
  4. The Senate Is Voting On The Prohormone Ban June 8th!!
    By VanillaGorilla in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-28-2004, 07:12 PM
  5. Question about prohormone ban
    By Iron Warrior in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-29-2003, 10:07 AM
Log in
Log in