Search results

The broad language is probably unconstitutionally vague. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered amending the list of specified steroids. A complete ban on substances like steroids or opiates without naming them works in some countries but generally doesn't work in the US. What is clear is that...

Because if it can build muscle or get you high, the government doesn't want you using it without their permission. This isn't an endorsement of rec drugs, just a point that the government thinks it knows what is best for us better than we do.

There was always some "catch-all" language that tried to rope in all anabolic steroids. They did improve and update it, but the constitutionality of charging someone with possession of an anabolic steroid that is not specifically listed is sketchy at best. There's a reason why federal and...

Under any interpretation of the bill, anyone possessing any product containing any of the banned substances is in possession of a controlled substance. It matters not one bit whether that product is a research chemical, dietary supplement, powder, etc.

:blink: I wasn't trying to be a dick.

He won't veto. The best we can hope for is him not signing it in time.

While the new catch-all language is bad, there has always been catch-all language. Generally constitutional requirements in the US require a compound to be named specifically in order for possession to be criminalized. The real damage in this bill is the ease with which new substances can be...

Respectfully, your interpretation is incorrect. FWIW, I am an attorney.

It doesn't say that. The 30 day language refers to orders from the AG adding new substances.

Oh I know all that. I was simply pointing out that the comparison is a poor one. Incidentally, acetaminophen is more dangerous that caffeine, regardless of the form in which it is dosed. I simply don't believe that in a free society, the appropriate response to a few isolated incidents is to...

The happy medium is allowing people the opportunity to be responsible for themselves and their children.

So you'd be ok if they banned books as long as they allowed magazines? I mean, it's not as if they banned the written word entirely.

Acetaminophen is sold in caps because it's regulated as a drug. Federal law and regulation specify approved dosage forms. Same for aspirin.

That is not correct.

You mean ER resources? Are you serious?

And yet overdoses are extremely rare. So we should restrict choice for the entire country because a few people die of caffeine overdoses every year?

I understand your point, but I don't believe that it's the government's place to tell me that I can't have something because someone else might misuse it.

I was referring to DASCA. But if you're cool with a nanny state looking over your shoulder then I guess you're getting what you want.

It's been dead for a while. It may be hitting you harder now and you're just taking more notice of it.

This.