Amy Shipley's article = done

[okboy63]

If they want to eradicate these supplements from competive athletics, thats up to them. In doing so they are eradicating it for me a 42 year old programmer. Fast food has done far more damage to me and a million other people than these things ever will.
Did you ever see the documentary 'Super size me' and what that stuff did to that guys liver after eating nothing but mcdonalds for a month ? Why don't they go ahead and ban religion and soft core porn, advertising, gambling anything that could possibly screw somebody up.

 

[screwbol]

We all knew that these new products were destined for an early grave after Jan 19th. I am suprised they came this far and lasted as long as they have without being blasted by the mainstream media. Much hate for Amy Shipley, though, she is just trying to make a name for herself at the expense of our freedom.

 

[RSX-S]

Maybe companies like Legal Gear who advertise blatantly like that have a point. Every political movement that gets attention and makes some serious change starts out with an in-your-face attitude. Maybe they should be doing that, and we should be more open about it instead of trying to skulk around like criminals, enjoying what we have until it gets taken away and then just biching about it. I'm starting to like the open attitude. It's nice to say to someone, "Yes, these are steroids. Yes, I've used them. And, since I'm not a monster, not in ill health and not adversely affecting other people or selling to kids, why don't you just mind your own fucking business?"

Nothing pisses busy bodies off more than direct challenges to their apparent God given right to run everyone else's life. And when pissed, usually it becomes clear what complete wastes of life they are. Maybe to get our point of view across we should start being more open and blatant about who we are and what we do. If more people realized that their neighbor is doing roids and isn't running around killing people, they'd get a little more clued in to the reality of the situation.

"We're on gear! We're here! Get fucking used to it!"

Good post! :clap2:

 

[snakebyte05]

Only problem with coming out with it is, when most come out and protest, they are protesting about them doing illegal acts. If we all claim to be using steroids, well im not sure exactly what would happen.

 

[The Experiment]

Only problem with coming out with it is, when most come out and protest, they are protesting about them doing illegal acts. If we all claim to be using steroids, well im not sure exactly what would happen.

Nothing. Unless you are selling steroids during the protest. When people protest at "high noon" for the decriminalization of marijuana, the DEA didn't raid everyone's homes and the mary jane is a Schedule One drug.

We need to voice our opinions. Seriously.

 

[Jack of Shadows]

horray for the fucking liberals at the washington post
get a life

Yea...and that fucking liberal president who focused on those evil steroids in his state of the union speech a couple years ago, even though he had more important things to worry about (Iraqi insurgents have killed more people than AAS).

No, wait...that was W. My bad!

And that liberal John McCain who has spearheaded this congressional assault on evil steroid use.

No, wait...damn...wrong again.

Open your fucking eyes. This is not a partisan issue, it is a stupidity issue and stupidity is an equal opportunity affliction (and you don't want to look like you are on the stupid side). We should all start voting ignorant fucks out of office, regardless of political affiliation.

 

[CDB]

We could not have planted a greater hypocrisy in their paper.

If they have a message board for the paper maybe we could get some of our finest defenders of freedom (no, not the marines ) to go give them hell.I'd love to hear them try to respond to CDB or Bow, nevermind Bobo or Dr. D. The only problem is they could probably trace who we are and put our careers in jeopardy just for revealing their ignorance to them.

I loathe the media :numbered:

My career is always in jeopardy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[CDB]

i like that idea. But seriously we need to branch together. Look it has been stated before, flame on me if you want but GAYS come out come together and say accept me, and guess what we have shows called Will and Grace, queer eye etc. I am down CDB, we should shout juicer and proud !!!

Juicer Eye for the Pathetic Gym Guy would be a good show. Imagine some 300 pound monster with a lisp telling some waif he shouldn't do 10lb dumbbell curls in the squat cage.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

The five products tested by Catlin were: Superdrol, supplied by Designer Supplements of New Hyde Park, N.Y., for Anabolic Xtreme of San Diego; Prostanozoland Ergomax LMG, both marketed by Applied Lifescience Research Industries (ALRI) of Las Vegas; Methyl 1-P, sold by Legal Gear of Brighton, Mich.; and, FiniGenX Magnum Liquid, sold by PharmaGenX of San Marcos, Calif.

Wow...she must want angry mommy's to call these companies. She sure is giving out a lot of information....

Representatives from each of the companies declined or did not respond to multiple written and telephone requests for interviews.

Well, there is a dirty little half-truth...

Kevin Smith, the president of Anabolic Xtreme, said in an e-mail that the company no longer distributes Superdrol.

Yeah...I guess we all knew this was the reason.

ALRI head Author L. Rea and industry partner Bruce Kneller of Gaspari Nutrition, which has a working relationship with ALRI, wrote in an open letter to The Post on a public Internet message board that "none of the compounds we have developed and currently market are in current violation of any controlled substance act at either the federal or state level. . . .
We feel our products are correctly [and legally] marketed to and for educated, intelligent adult men."

Too bad she did'nt quote the rest of Author's post!! :rasp:

Catlin's analyses of the five products obtained by The Post suggest that none is properly labeled as a dietary supplement, as defined in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which governs the industry and places dietary supplements in a special category under the general umbrella of foods rather than drugs...

Now that sure is going to be a problem :blink:


This crazy bitch did her homework and really made ZERO ATTEMPT to have an "open mind". She didn't care about the facts regarding steroid use and their misconception regarding their health risks, she only cared to get someone busted.....:frustrate

"The agency is prepared to take appropriate action against any product that purports to be a 'dietary supplement' if it is determined that product contains steroids, steroid precursors or active ingredients found in prescription drugs," Rawlings said.

Scary words from a gov't entity with pretty much unlimited power.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

We should all start voting ignorant fucks out of office, regardless of political affiliation.

Too bad it took a bunch of stupid fucks to put those stupid fucks into office.

I don't have much faith in people...

 

[The Experiment]

Too bad it took a bunch of stupid fucks to put those stupid fucks into office.

I don't have much faith in people...

People suck ass because as long as it doesn't involve them, they don't give a ****.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

People suck ass because as long as it doesn't involve them, they don't give a ****.

I think they suck because they can't seem to guage residual effects from their actions.

 

[spatch]

How about we put a list of all unhealthy foods thousands of americans eat a day in an article? Wont finish it till 2090. :frustrate

People suck ass because as long as it doesn't involve them, they don't give a ****.

even more so, people suck ass because they involve themselves in stuff that isnt any of there business, such as someone taking steroids.

 

[jrkarp]

We should all start voting ignorant fucks out of office, regardless of political affiliation.

The problem is that they are fed this information by the media and the medical community.

I can't really blame W or the others; it's not like they know that AAS are safe when used properly. Between the medical community's ignorance and the media's need to sensationalize everything, it's not surprising that they believe what they do.

Think about it. There are hundreds of doctors who will line up to say that AAS are terrible for you. For every doctor that says they are safe, you will find 50 or more who will tell you over and over how dangerous they are. If you knew nothing about AAS, but you saw report after report, written by dozens of people who are considered experts in the medical field, and heard from maybe a few doctors who contradicted the reports, and then saw news reports talking about how dangerous they are, quoting even more doctors, what would you think?

The problem is not the politicians. The problem is the media and the medical community. Most doctors know nothing about steroids, and merely repeat what they read or see on TV. The media are a bunch of whores who play on peoples' fears to get ratings and readers. They don't care if what they report is true; they care about getting their numbers up. Journalistic integrity is, unfortunately, a thing of the past.

In any case, voting based on one issue is never a good idea. There are many other issues that have a bigger effect on our lives than how a politician votes on AAS.

 

[Jack of Shadows]

Too bad it took a bunch of stupid fucks to put those stupid fucks into office.

I don't have much faith in people...

Sadly, I cannot disagree with that assessment.

 

[Jack of Shadows]

The problem is that they are fed this information by the media and the medical community.

I can't really blame W or the others; it's not like they know that AAS are safe when used properly. Between the medical community's ignorance and the media's need to sensationalize everything, it's not surprising that they believe what they do.

Think about it. There are hundreds of doctors who will line up to say that AAS are terrible for you. For every doctor that says they are safe, you will find 50 or more who will tell you over and over how dangerous they are. If you knew nothing about AAS, but you saw report after report, written by dozens of people who are considered experts in the medical field, and heard from maybe a few doctors who contradicted the reports, and then saw news reports talking about how dangerous they are, quoting even more doctors, what would you think?

The problem is not the politicians. The problem is the media and the medical community. Most doctors know nothing about steroids, and merely repeat what they read or see on TV. The media are a bunch of whores who play on peoples' fears to get ratings and readers. They don't care if what they report is true; they care about getting their numbers up. Journalistic integrity is, unfortunately, a thing of the past.

In any case, voting based on one issue is never a good idea. There are many other issues that have a bigger effect on our lives than how a politician votes on AAS.

I only wish that politicians who do not know something would just shut up about it. And, if you read testimony in front of congress over the years, you will find that they simply ignore facts that do not agree with their preconceived notions.

I think many scientists (besides those like Wadler and others who are simply wallowing in ignorance) are intimidated into silence or agreement through fear. This should never happen. I was glad to attend one of the meetings by the US Sentencing Commission with Rick and speak my mind. I hope to do so again.

Single issue voting...sure not a good overall strategy. But in some of those cases, the stupidity across major issues has piled up sufficiently to point in the general direction.

 

[jrkarp]

I only wish that politicians who do not know something would just shut up about it. And, if you read testimony in front of congress over the years, you will find that they simply ignore facts that do not agree with their preconceived notions.

I know that there has been testimony in favor of AAS over the years. However, the majority has been very against AAS.

 

[CDB]

Single issue voting...sure not a good overall strategy. But in some of those cases, the stupidity across major issues has piled up sufficiently to point in the general direction.

I don't think single issue voting is a bad idea. You're basically going to be screwed no matter who is in office. Picking a wedge issue and voting on it is a good way to get what you want and you can deal with the rest as you always do.

The problem in this instance would be few people focussing on the real wedge issue, prohibition, and only caring about prohibition of their preferred subsance. Just as you can use steroids safely and responsibly, you can use cocaine safely and responsibly, you can use marijuana safely and responsibly. You can even use heroin safely and responsibly.

But, like everyone else in the world, people in our little grouping of substance users generally don't give a **** about anyone else who is getting screwed in the same exact way.

I do believe that if all the juicers, stoners, hop heads, junkies and tweakers of the world united you'd have a political force to be reckoned with.

 

[cpa5oh]

Yea...and that fucking liberal president who focused on those evil steroids in his state of the union speech a couple years ago, even though he had more important things to worry about (Iraqi insurgents have killed more people than AAS).

No, wait...that was W. My bad!

And that liberal John McCain who has spearheaded this congressional assault on evil steroid use.

No, wait...damn...wrong again.

Open your fucking eyes. This is not a partisan issue, it is a stupidity issue and stupidity is an equal opportunity affliction (and you don't want to look like you are on the stupid side). We should all start voting ignorant fucks out of office, regardless of political affiliation.

You think George W Bush is a conservative? You think McCain is a conservative?

If you say yes, I say bullshit.

Democrats most certainly are farther to the left than Republican politicians...they'd like to take much more away from you than supplements (like your money if you have any.) They are way out there...like socialist-out-there.

But these Republican politicians, they're the liberals of twenty years ago...not as far out to the left as Democrats, but still WAY farther out there than the founding fathers and true conservatives would like them to be. They hit Washington, start to feel some power, and rather than vow to give their/the government's power up, all they do is fight with the Democrats on how far to the left we should go and how we should get there.

There is a quote from somewhere that goes something like this..."If Democrats called for socialism TOMORROW, Republicans would say 'no, no, no...wait a minute...we have to PHASE THAT IN OVER THREE YEARS."

Simply stated, there is no such thing as a conservative politician anymore. They are all way out there to the left (big government, someone else making your decisions, no personal accountability, welfare state) and conservative voters, in an effort to slow down the rate of government growth/intrusion, rally behind them at election time because they fear the alternative.

Essentially we're being run by a monarchy with a real, real liberal wing and a just plain liberal wing. No such thing as a conservative politician...

 

[bigpetefox]

There's a politics forum for that, keep this on topic please...

 

[Jack of Shadows]

You think George W Bush is a conservative? You think McCain is a conservative?

If you say yes, I say bullshit.

No, not at all - that was not the point.

In today's climate, I think using either label, conservative and liberal, as if it means something is bullshit. Focusing on labels as opposed to policies enacted and actions taken, is bullshit.

 

[jrkarp]

I don't think single issue voting is a bad idea. You're basically going to be screwed no matter who is in office. Picking a wedge issue and voting on it is a good way to get what you want and you can deal with the rest as you always do.

The problem in this instance would be few people focussing on the real wedge issue, prohibition, and only caring about prohibition of their preferred subsance. Just as you can use steroids safely and responsibly, you can use cocaine safely and responsibly, you can use marijuana safely and responsibly. You can even use heroin safely and responsibly.

But, like everyone else in the world, people in our little grouping of substance users generally don't give a **** about anyone else who is getting screwed in the same exact way.

I do believe that if all the juicers, stoners, hop heads, junkies and tweakers of the world united you'd have a political force to be reckoned with.

The rec drugs you mentioned have a characteristic that differentiates them from AAS. They have the propensity (and in the case of heroin, the extreme likelihood) of causing physical addiction. Addiction makes "responsible" use of these drugs less likely as time goes on.

This addiction also causes long term use in increasing amounts, causing increasing health problems. Since junkies and cokeheads often end up unemployed (and cokeheads, when unemployed end up being crackheads, since crack is so much cheaper), the taxpayers foot the bill. Not to mention the fact that the addiction often drives other criminal behavior, such as robberies and muggings.

Is prohibition very effective? No. But given the dangers of the hardcore rec drugs and their cost to society over the long run, legalizing them is not an option.

 

[The Experiment]

The banning of drugs started happening in the early 1900s when drug addiction was a serious problem. You could order Heroin from a magazine and shoot yourself up with it. About a third of China in the 1800s was addicted to Opium.

Its really unknown what would happen. A lot of pro-legalization proponents suggest rates would decrease but it could increase dramatically and become a serious problem. I don't think its a risk that the government and the people want to take.

 

[BigVrunga]

Maybe companies like Legal Gear who advertise blatantly like that have a point. Every political movement that gets attention and makes some serious change starts out with an in-your-face attitude. Maybe they should be doing that, and we should be more open about it instead of trying to skulk around like criminals, enjoying what we have until it gets taken away and then just biching about it. I'm starting to like the open attitude. It's nice to say to someone, "Yes, these are steroids. Yes, I've used them. And, since I'm not a monster, not in ill health and not adversely affecting other people or selling to kids, why don't you just mind your own fucking business?"

Nothing pisses busy bodies off more than direct challenges to their apparent God given right to run everyone else's life. And when pissed, usually it becomes clear what complete wastes of life they are. Maybe to get our point of view across we should start being more open and blatant about who we are and what we do. If more people realized that their neighbor is doing roids and isn't running around killing people, they'd get a little more clued in to the reality of the situation.

"We're on gear! We're here! Get fucking used to it!"

I love that idea. Problem is, we'd all have to do it at once - launch a giant, organized campaign about our own personal right to manipulate our own bodies.

Otherwise, you'll end up in court or worse. The powers that be dont like blatant challenges to their authorotai.

BV

 

[BigVrunga]

The rec drugs you mentioned have a characteristic that differentiates them from AAS. They have the propensity (and in the case of heroin, the extreme likelihood) of causing physical addiction. Addiction makes "responsible" use of these drugs less likely as time goes on.

This addiction also causes long term use in increasing amounts, causing increasing health problems. Since junkies and cokeheads often end up unemployed (and cokeheads, when unemployed end up being crackheads, since crack is so much cheaper), the taxpayers foot the bill. Not to mention the fact that the addiction often drives other criminal behavior, such as robberies and muggings.

Is prohibition very effective? No. But given the dangers of the hardcore rec drugs and their cost to society over the long run, legalizing them is not an option.

Like mentioned above, there is a huge difference between a rec drugs like marijuana and drugs like heroin or cocaine. I dont think people should have their lives destroyed for using any kind of drug, but there should be some kind of constraint on drugs with serious possibilities for addiction. Like cigarettes, heroin, etc.

Education and honesty, rather than an all out 'Drugs Are Evil!' approach would be a good place to start.

 

[cpa5oh]

No, not at all - that was not the point.

In today's climate, I think using either label, conservative and liberal, as if it means something is bullshit. Focusing on labels as opposed to policies enacted and actions taken, is bullshit.

Ok...I agree with that...when it comes to politicians themselves.

But most citizens that call themselves conservatives are actually conservatives...and the pundits (Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, etc.) are truly conservatives, too. I've heard BOTH of the two guys I used as an example in the last sentence mention steroids/prohormones...and both were saying "why is it the government's business if somebody wants to use these things?"

I just believe that if the US were run by TRUE conservatives (which it'll never be because the words "politician" and "conservative" are pretty much opposed) that the government wouldn't be snooping through your medicine cabinet.

I want everyone to tend to their own business and not worry about having their OPINIONS made into laws.