Are SARMs illegal?

[The_Old_Guy]

Are SARMs actually illegal...

No (unless you have some weird local/state law or something). I can't go to a long standing US website and order Cocaine, pay with Visa, and have it delivered by the USPS. I can for a SARM. There may be some semantics around end use - but DEA/Postal Inspectors would be all over the US sites if they were in fact illegal for all things.

 

[R_Alan1]

Thanks for the input old guy, I'm assuming you stay on top of these things? It's my understanding things are legal till they're specifically made illegal and I haven't found any proof to support the latter

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Thanks for the input old guy, I'm assuming you stay on top of these things? It's my understanding things are legal till they're specifically made illegal and I haven't found any proof to support the latter

Ha! I'm not on top of anything I'm just using common sense - I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[R_Alan1]

"I could be wrong, but I doubt it" you sound like me I love it!

 

[Tiocfaidh]

I'm not saying I know SARMs are legal but all you're proving is its illegal to market and sell it as a dietary substance, read what you just quoted me "a dietary substance may not include...unless the article was marketed as a dietary supplement or food before its authorization as a new drug." Again, nowhere does it say it's illegal to sell it or take it. There's an unlimited amount of rules for what dietary supplements can and can't do but it all comes down to what the company purports it to be. A benign supp can't even be marketed to seem like it will give you steroid like effects, that's how's specific the fda is with this stuff. When k2 and bath salts came out they were sold as incense and bath salt but everyone used them to get high. It wasn't until years later that using them for an off label purpose became illegal. That's where SARMs are. Is there legislation specific to lgd 4033 or Mk 2866 or gw 501516 that specifies it is illegal to take?

its like talking to a ****in wall. i gave you the reason why they can't be sold as supplements.

the other reason why they are illegal is because without proper approval from the fda as a DRUG, its illegal to be sold, marketing, used by humans. its two separate reason why its illegal. you keep thinking the laws around sarms are being applied to as a supplement. they aren't. they are unapproved DRUGS. under your reasoning, i can legally sell drugs being development by pfizer and merck because there isn't a law that specifically lists the substance. it doesn't work that way.

 

[Tiocfaidh]

No (unless you have some weird local/state law or something). I can't go to a long standing US website and order Cocaine, pay with Visa, and have it delivered by the USPS. I can for a SARM. There may be some semantics around end use - but DEA/Postal Inspectors would be all over the US sites if they were in fact illegal for all things.

they are beginning to as well as credit card processors shutting them down. most sites are using international credit card processors because domestic ones won't take them.

if you actually think they are legal, you're nuts.

 

[Tiocfaidh]

Thanks for the input old guy, I'm assuming you stay on top of these things? It's my understanding things are legal till they're specifically made illegal and I haven't found any proof to support the latter

wrong.

why don't you take a picture of it, send it to the FDA, and ask them. want to bet what they tell you because i already know.

 

[EasyEJL]

No (unless you have some weird local/state law or something). I can't go to a long standing US website and order Cocaine, pay with Visa, and have it delivered by the USPS. I can for a SARM. There may be some semantics around end use - but DEA/Postal Inspectors would be all over the US sites if they were in fact illegal for all things.

Illegal does not mean an enforced law. It's still federally illegal to sell marijuana, but gasp, you can walk into shops in Colorado, and buy marijuana with a credit card. There are tons of non enforced laws. It's half our problem with the gun laws, they don't enforce them.


Epistane, pheraplex, superdrol, etc have been illegal how long now? But you can still find places that sell it online and will ship to your home and you don't hear a lot of stories of either an end user or seller getting arrested. Why? Because the DEA + FDA only have so many agents, and so much time to spend.

In addition, two winners of Alabama laws that obviously aren't enforced

Masks may not be worn in public.

It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[R_Alan1]

Tioc show me proof. Illegal to be marketed as a dietary supplement, yes, we both agree on that. Illegal to be sold? I don't think so. Illegal to take? Still not sure. This is from the fda website...

According to section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff)(3)(B)(ii)], a dietary supplement also may not include an article authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and made public, unless the article was marketed as a dietary supplement or food before its authorization as a new drug. (2S)-3-(4-cyanophenoxy)-N-[4-cyano-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropanamide) is the subject of substantial clinical investigations, which have been made public (see note 1, infra). Based on the information available to FDA, ostarine was not marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food until after it was under substantial clinical investigation. Therefore, “CE6” and “SARMZ,” which contain ostarine, are also excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff)(3)(B)(ii)].
All is says is it can't be sold as a dietary supplement, nothing citing any law about having it or using it or even selling for research purposes, just can't be sold as a DIETARY SUPPLEMENT

 

[EasyEJL]

Usually investigative compounds are patented + copyrighted, so it's a violation of the law to sell them. Again, generally unenforced because who cares? the research chem companies might sell even $100,000 a month all combined, the pharma company is looking at millions a month so they don't bother to push it

 

[R_Alan1]

With that said the seller is violating copyright law but the consumer isn't violating any law in that situation

 

[Woody]

Nobody got fired for prohormones before they were banned and they're more of a steroid than SARMs. You can't get in trouble for something that isn't illegal just cuz it should be illegal or one day will be illegal. It's either illegal with statutes and administrative code or it's not illegal, albeit it may be soon.

This is false.

Weed is legal in Colorado. Your employer can fire you. In many states, you're an at-will employee. You can be fired because you forgot to wash your hair.
Your employer can also mandate what you can and can't do

 

[Woody]

Many SARMs are illegal to sell and illegal to consume. They are patented by pharmaceutical companies and still in early stages of trials. So, while there may be no statute saying "it is hereby illegal for you, R_Alan1 of Anabolic Minds, to consume Ostarine and/or MK2866, LGD 4033, MK866 ...."

As far as the argument that you can buy them online so they're legal - you can buy steroids online and other prescription grade drugs online without a prescription. Does not mean it's legal. You can buy children and women online. Also not legal.

 

[EasyEJL]

With that said the seller is violating copyright law but the consumer isn't violating any law in that situation

absolutely. as I mentioned, ownership of the substance is wishy washy, whether it is really legal to own (if there is no legal way to purchase it) but there aren't specific laws against it, until it actually is a prescription drug (like nolva) where then possession without a prescription is illegal.

 

[Woody]

A patent owner has the right to exclude others from making, selling, offering to sell, importing or using a patented invention. Thus, you may be liable for infringement due to your use

- USPTO

 

[The_Old_Guy]

they are beginning to as well as credit card processors shutting them down. most sites are using international credit card processors because domestic ones won't take them.

if you actually think they are legal, you're nuts.

What law made them illegal for me to purchase and then pour down my drain because I get my rocks off emptying blue bottles into the sink? You proving there is a law against purchasing them, is a lot easier than me proving there isn't - so what law (like our beloved H.R. 4771 (113th): Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2014) made them illegal to jab into a lab animal, or shoot with a BB Gun?

 

[R_Alan1]

Woody, I never said just cuz I can buy it online it's legal, I am not that naive lol, however I still am not seeing any bill or other type of legislature banning the aforementioned substance. As far as getting fired for weed even tho you can buy it legally that's a totally different conversation. If, IF, your employer has, in writing, a policy banning it's use you're gonna get fired and have to fight for your job back and if the trend on weed continues the way it is it'll eventually get to some upper level appellate court and be okay'd for out of work use similar to alocohol. Your job can't fire you for using a substance that isn't A illegal and B excluded for use per their terms of employment.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Illegal does not mean an enforced law. It's still federally illegal to sell marijuana, but gasp, you can walk into shops in Colorado, and buy marijuana with a credit card. There are tons of non enforced laws. It's half our problem with the gun laws, they don't enforce them.


Epistane, pheraplex, superdrol, etc have been illegal how long now? But you can still find places that sell it online and will ship to your home and you don't hear a lot of stories of either an end user or seller getting arrested. Why? Because the DEA + FDA only have so many agents, and so much time to spend.

You made some good points, but everything you mentioned *does* have *some* law passed against them, *somewhere*. Federal for the first, and DASCA for the second examples (Thank God for the 10th Amendment in the case of weed). Is there a law (Like DASCA) for 'Not for human consumption' chemicals that get tested on animals? One that says an end purchaser can be criminally charged?

 

[yates84]

This thread is very entertaining

 

[The_Old_Guy]

This thread is very entertaining

In the Military, they called us "Barracks Lawyers" And the UCMJ is *way* more complicated than USC

 

[EasyEJL]

You made some good points, but everything you mentioned *does* have *some* law passed against them, *somewhere*. Federal for the first, and DASCA for the second examples (Thank God for the 10th Amendment in the case of weed). Is there a law (Like DASCA) for 'Not for human consumption' chemicals that get tested on animals? One that says an end purchaser can be criminally charged?

maybe at a state level

 

[yates84]

In the Military, they called us "Barracks Lawyers"

Yep, and this is about the same level as that; pure speculation with nothing to really back it up. Kinda reminds me of Fox news lol

 

[Woody]

Woody, I never said just cuz I can buy it online it's legal, I am not that naive lol, however I still am not seeing any bill or other type of legislature banning the aforementioned substance. As far as getting fired for weed even tho you can buy it legally that's a totally different conversation. If, IF, your employer has, in writing, a policy banning it's use you're gonna get fired and have to fight for your job back and if the trend on weed continues the way it is it'll eventually get to some upper level appellate court and be okay'd for out of work use similar to alocohol. Your job can't fire you for using a substance that isn't A illegal and B excluded for use per their terms of employment.

What state do you live in? Is your state an at-will state?

I don't think you know how the law works. Your employer can fire you for whatever they want. Just because something is legalized doesn't mean your employer has to condone it. As I said, if you showed up to work and didn't wash your hair, an at-will employer could fire you on the spot. You would have no legal remedies except unemployment compensation. Courts don't like to make employers retain employees and vice versa because it isn't conducive for a productive working environment.

Your job can fire you for alcohol, cigarettes, birth control, going to strip clubs, posting **** on social media, not washing your hair, eating cheetohs on your lunch break. You seem to be under the false impression that you can only be fired for cause. That is generally not the case.

Also - it's patent infringement to use a SARM, so yes it is illegal.

 

[smith_69]

Yep, and this is about the same level as that; pure speculation with nothing to really back it up. Kinda reminds me of Fox news lol

whoa - nothing wrong with fox news- it speaks the truth all the time, every time-

Invalid Link Removed

 

[R_Alan1]

What state do you live in? Is your state an at-will state?

I don't think you know how the law works. Your employer can fire you for whatever they want. Just because something is legalized doesn't mean your employer has to condone it. As I said, if you showed up to work and didn't wash your hair, an at-will employer could fire you on the spot. You would have no legal remedies except unemployment compensation. Courts don't like to make employers retain employees and vice versa because it isn't conducive for a productive working environment.

Your job can fire you for alcohol, cigarettes, birth control, going to strip clubs, posting **** on social media, not washing your hair, eating cheetohs on your lunch break. You seem to be under the false impression that you can only be fired for cause. That is generally not the case.

Also - it's patent infringement to use a SARM, so yes it is illegal.

I know how the law works better than most. I'll agree that your employer can fire you for any reason, or no reason at all. But I know you can sue for your job back or a fat settlement and if you don't think that happens than you my friend don't know how the law works. There are more labor laws than you could imagine just to protect people from wrongful termination. And assuming what you did was legal at the time, and not specifically forbidden by your employer, you'd have an easy case. Your argument about patent infringement making use illegal is frivolous and totally not the point of my original question. It's inconceivable that an employer would even waste their time looking up the patent, and the laws governing said patent, to build a legitimate case to fire an employee for a personal use patent infringement case. If your employer is gonna go trough that then you're dead no matter what you do. I appreciate the laughs tho ?

 

[Woody]

No. You clearly do not have any idea how the law works. Stop watching Judge Judy and CSI. They are 110% factually innacurate. Patent infringement is illegal. This is indisputable. Most SARMs are patented. This is also indisputable. You asked if it's illegal to take SARMs. Yes. It's patent infringement. That's illegal.

Further, you don't have any cause of action for wrongful termination. Unless you have a contractual provision (I.e upper management/tenured professor/etc) or your state laws say otherwise (remember that time I prefaced my statements with IF YOU LIVE IN AN AT-WILL STATE?) then your claims would get dismissed.

Your employer retains the right to fire you at will with or without cause. Likewise, your employer does not have to spell out every single thing that they can fire you for. Rather, most employment contracts for most employees have a clause similar in nature to "Employer retains the right to terminate this contract with employee with or without cause/for any reason/for just cause." I like to think I'm pretty well versed in the legal field, considering I do this for a living. But hey, you probably got your law degree on Wikipedia - so you know better than me.

Explains why when everyone gives you an answer you don't like you just argue with them and try to assert how much smarter you are than everyone.

Go ahead and sue your employer when they fire you. You will incur legal expenses and have zero standing. And fwiw, wrongful termination is typically in retaliation cases. There is zero retaliation (or discrimination for that matter) for firing an employee for not washing their hair or eating cheetohs on their lunch break.

 

[R_Alan1]

If this is what you do for work I'm surprised you can afford the Internet you're using right now cuz your arguments are weak. I have a very specific contract at my work and no coverall management prerogative clause to fire me which is why I didn't even entertain your notions about that so you can just stop repeating it. I don't think I'm smarter than everyone but not one person has cited a law proving SARMs are illegal. Oh sorry you pointed out that they're patented making purchasing illegal, that's you assuming I A purchased them or B obtained them from someone other than the patent holding pharmaceutical company. So let's assume I'm in a clinical trial with the patent holding pharma company and I take them. Now am I breaking a law? Cuz it's pretty obvious to everyone that has commented, besides you, that that's what I'm asking. Idc about patent laws. Is there a statute criminalizing the use of SARMs. Or we could assume a new not patented compound that was in the classification of SARMs came out, is there an all encompassing ban or SARMs and fundamentally similar chemical compounds?

 

[Woody]

If this is what you do for work I'm surprised you can afford the Internet you're using right now cuz your arguments are weak. I have a very specific contract at my work and no coverall management prerogative clause to fire me which is why I didn't even entertain your notions about that so you can just stop repeating it. I don't think I'm smarter than everyone but not one person has cited a law proving SARMs are illegal. Oh sorry you pointed out that they're patented making purchasing illegal, that's you assuming I A purchased them or B obtained them from someone other than the patent holding pharmaceutical company. So let's assume I'm in a clinical trial with the patent holding pharma company and I take them. Now am I breaking a law? Cuz it's pretty obvious to everyone that has commented, besides you, that that's what I'm asking. Idc about patent laws. Is there a statute criminalizing the use of SARMs. Or we could assume a new not patented compound that was in the classification of SARMs came out, is there an all encompassing ban or SARMs and fundamentally similar chemical compounds?

Are SARMs actually illegal to take or are they just illegal to market/sell as a "dietary supplement?" I know WADA banned them like 8 years ago but I'm curious on the actual legality of taking them. I'm not a competitive athlete or anything but I wanna know their legal status.

Thanks easy. Are they legal to take tho? Cuz you can buy it under the guise that it's not for human consumption

Right I get that it's 100% illegal to sell for human use it in a dietary supp. But fast forward to now that someone has it, is it illegal to take?

Idk what's vague about it. Is cocaine illegal to take? Yes. Heroin? Yes. SARMs? Idk you tell me. You can buy dust off but if you huff it it's a crime. This question is the exact opposite of vague.

Illegal to take. Illegal to take. Illegal to take. Yes, they are illegal to take. Clearly you aren't in the clinical trial because you'd have a prescription/doctors note for it so that's a rather silly contention. You also aren't purchasing directly from the pharmaceutical company so let's throw that silly contention out.


As far as the rest of your argument - it just goes to show how little you know about the legal field. You can't hide evidence/pertinent information (i.e. the specifics of your employment contract) and then just try to drop them in court to win the case. There is this process called discovery.

I've seen like 180 people tell you not to take them. Apparently, you're waiting for someone to tell you to go ahead and take them. There is not a statute that expressly says "LGD 4033 is illegal and punishable by beheading and a **** punt to China".

If you're unaware, which it sort of seems like you would be, SARMs are suppressive. If the drug test you take tests for hormone imbalances, you will pop positive for steroids. I highly doubt your employment "contract" specifies they can only test you for steroids upon reasonable suspicion.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Alan, you are either a genius trying to teach everyone participating here something by way of the 'Socratic method'...

...or you enjoy tedious arguing based on a misconceived black and white view of the world, just for te lulz

 

[Woody]

Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2014 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to add specified substances to the list of those included within the definition of "anabolic steroid." Provides that a drug or hormonal substance (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone) that is not listed and that is derived from, or has a chemical structure substantially similar to, an anabolic steroid that is listed, shall be considered to be an anabolic steroid for purposes of such Act if it: (1) has been created or manufactured with the intent of producing a substance that either promotes muscle growth or otherwise causes a pharmacological effect similar to that of testosterone; or (2) has been, or is intended to be, promoted in any manner suggesting that consuming it will promote any pharmacological effect similar to that of testosterone.

Prohibits a substance from being considered to be a drug or hormonal substance for purposes of such Act if it is: (1) an herb or other botanical, a concentrate, metabolite, or extract of, or a constituent isolated directly from, an herb or other botanical, or a combination of two or more such substances; or (2) a dietary ingredient for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and is not anabolic or androgenic. Requires any person claiming the benefit of such an exception to bear the burden of providing the appropriate evidence.

This means your only argument is SARMs are not derived from or similar to any listed AAS. Chemistry isn't my forte but you seem to love moot arguments so good luck.

 

[R_Alan1]

Mayan it's both lmao! And woody, I'm not in the trial you stupid f**k it's called a hypothetical situation cuz ur too stupid to understand what I'm asking. You either have a law that bans them or you don't, simple as that. That is my question. Let's amend the question to "is there a law, a non patent infringement based law, that bans an American citizen from taking SARMs regardless of employment status?" Is that easier for you to understand?
Oh and last time I checked we're not in court and you're not a lawyer. But I apologize that secretary didn't deliver the discovery to your office fast enough. Didn't think my employment contract made a difference in whether or not something is illegal. I'm stupid tho so maybe it's illegal for ME but someone with a different job can take it? Do I get the legal system now? Idk what backwards state you live in but ur out there bro. Lmao ???

 

[EasyEJL]

Illegal to take. Illegal to take. Illegal to take. Yes, they are illegal to take. Clearly you aren't in the clinical trial because you'd have a prescription/doctors note for it so that's a rather silly contention. You also aren't purchasing directly from the pharmaceutical company so let's throw that silly contention out.

I'm not saying I agree with him....

But are they actually illegal to take? they are illegal to have in your possession, yes. So being at the point where you can take them is committing a crime. But is the act of taking them a crime? It isn't for heroin, marijuana, cocaine, etc. It's just possession that is illegal. Unless you are on probation or certain things along those lines, you can't be charged with a crime for failing a drug test, other than driving under the influence. Which is a separate act on its own.

Even alcohol and minors, it's illegal for them to possess it but I've never heard of a minor being charged with a crime for having alcohol in their system (other than drunk + disorderly, etc)

If "having used" a substance was a crime, then you'd bet a whole lot of people would be in jail for even longer, since they'd get double rapped with the possession as well as usage charge.

 

[Woody]

I'm pretty sure I had already established that you weren't in the trial when I said "that's a rather silly contention". As far as your name calling, if you can't engage in a discussion without resorting to name calling and personal attacks you really shouldn't start threads on a forum that... Well... Engages in discussions.

Nonetheless, your entire point of this thread was to ascertain if your employer could fire you for taking a SARM. So yes, your employment contract is pretty relevant. What is okay for you to do at one employers office is not okay at another. Location is also relevant. Because you know, common law in Texas and California are different. But I'm just a lawyer that has no trouble keeping the Internet on so I wouldn't know that.

And finally, the fact that you are so adamant to defend SARMs pretty move points to the fact that even if they are illegal, you're going to take them regardless of what Jesus, Allah, or Buddah tell you on a Sunday picnic
EasyEJL the war on drugs is silly AF IMO, but that's a whole different discussion. There is no criminal statute penalizing the ingestion of SARMs, no. But there is a civil statute.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Hypothetically, if an employer did somehow know you were taking a SARM, and if that is patent infringement, couldn't they just fire you for that (patent infringement)?

 

[Woody]

Hypothetically, if an employer did somehow know you were taking a SARM, and if that is patent infringement, couldn't they just fire you for that?

Yep

 

[EasyEJL]

Hypothetically, if an employer did somehow know you were taking a SARM, and if that is patent infringement, couldn't they just fire you for that (patent infringement)?

it's interesting, like firing someone for having an illegal movie copy.

 

[Tiocfaidh]

Why would I listen to Rick Collins when we have good old Alan here to interpret the law.

****in dope.

 

[herderdude]

I recommend not taking the SARMs as it would be a waste of money. It's my experience that mental masturbators like yourself often let their brain interfere with their ability to make gains rather than facilitate the process.

 

[bighulksmash]

lol truth

 

[The_Old_Guy]

...that is not listed and that is derived from, or has a chemical structure substantially similar to, an anabolic steroid that is listed...

Here's where your argument falls down IMO. SARMS, to the best of my knowledge, are not derived or chemically similar to any listed steroid. Do we not have any actual f'n lawyers on PEDs around here?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Here's where your argument falls down IMO. SARMS, to the best of my knowledge, are not derived or chemically similar to any listed steroid. Do we not have any actual f'n lawyers on PEDs around here?

I did a cursory guugle search earlier, and it looks like both Pat Arnold and Rick Collins agree that SARMs will not be captured by any current steroid legislature. I thought there mightve been some semantic wiggle room there myself, but, I defer to those guys...

An employment case, I dunno, I personally wouldnt be surprised to see it called either way. Would depend on the competency of the arguments, and maybe a whole bunch of other variables *shrug*

 

[Woody]

Here's where your argument falls down IMO. SARMS, to the best of my knowledge, are not derived or chemically similar to any listed steroid. Do we not have any actual f'n lawyers on PEDs around here?

I mentioned that and said chemistry isn't my forte because I honestly have no idea about chemical structures and what classifies as chemically "similar". Is hydrogen peroxide chemically similar to water? I would say yes because it's just an extra oxygen atom but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

However, the legality of a substance is a moot point if your employer doesn't like it (i.e. Weed in Colorado. What OP doesn't understand is just because something is legal for recreational use doesn't mean your employer has to allow it. There are plenty of employers that have a zero alcohol policy. If you have a prescription/doctors note, the situation changes ). Further, I'm still under the impression you're going to pop a drug a test for steroids if you take a SARM (could be wrong here) and I can't think of any reputable employer taking "Nah bro. It's a SARM not a steroid. Totally different!" as a valid excuse. There would be no wrongful termination or the like because you failed a drug test.

 

[R_Alan1]

So it's shaping up to look like SARMs are NOT illegal, tho I'm sure they will be soon anyway, glad we got to that. My employer doesn't have any of these silly rules woody keeps mentioning AND as I said before they only test for roids on suspicion, yes that is in writing. But if they're gonna make me pop hot on a test I probably won't take them tho cuz it's not worth it to me. Still think this was a good post tho because, despite the arguing there's still 2000 views and I'm sure this is a topic plenty of people want clarification on

 

[smith_69]

[video=youtube;yMvY1Cm6Sd8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMvY1Cm6Sd8[/video]

 

[The_Old_Guy]

I mentioned that and said chemistry isn't my forte because I honestly have no idea about chemical structures and what classifies as chemically "similar". Is hydrogen peroxide chemically similar to water? I would say yes because it's just an extra oxygen atom but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

However, the legality of a substance is a moot point if your employer doesn't like it (i.e. Weed in Colorado. What OP doesn't understand is just because something is legal for recreational use doesn't mean your employer has to allow it. There are plenty of employers that have a zero alcohol policy. If you have a prescription/doctors note, the situation changes ). Further, I'm still under the impression you're going to pop a drug a test for steroids if you take a SARM (could be wrong here) and I can't think of any reputable employer taking "Nah bro. It's a SARM not a steroid. Totally different!" as a valid excuse. There would be no wrongful termination or the like because you failed a drug test.

I never got in on the whole "At Will Employment Is Never In The Employees Best Interest" (whoops, am I taking a side ) rabbit hole - I'm merely concentrating on if they are "Illegal" - as in a criminal penalty will be assessed by the State because a law was broken by either attempting to/ordering them, receiving them, or using them (on animals, yourself, or shooting the pretty blue bottles with a BB gun).

I consider the Patent Infringement argument a rabbit hole too - because that's Tort Law and no one goes to jail. The patent holder (plantiff) would have to sue individual users in court and would only receive money. *Highly Unlikely* for that to happen (ridiculous RIAA music lawsuits aside) - possible with the RC Company itself though I guess.

Basically, right or wrong, I consider Illegal = The State can put you in jail.

 

[smith_69]

I never got in on the whole "At Will Employment Is Never In The Employees Best Interest" (whoops, am I taking a side ) rabbit hole - I'm merely concentrating on if they are "Illegal" - as in a criminal penalty will be assessed by the State because a law was broken by either attempting to/ordering them, receiving them, or using them (on animals, yourself, or shooting the pretty blue bottles with a BB gun).

I consider the Patent Infringement argument a rabbit hole too - because that's Tort Law and no one goes to jail. The patent holder (plantiff) would have to sue individual users in court and would only receive money. *Highly Unlikely* for that to happen (ridiculous RIAA music lawsuits aside) - possible with the RC Company itself though I guess.

Basically, right or wrong, I consider Illegal = The State can put you in jail.

I guess Blackstone will hope that the judge agrees with "I consider the Patent Infringement argument a rabbit hole too - because that's Tort Law and no one goes to jail. The patent holder (plantiff) would have to sue individual users in court and would only receive money. *Highly Unlikely* for that to happen (ridiculous RIAA music lawsuits aside) "

Interested to read the final judgement against them

 

[The_Old_Guy]

I guess Blackstone will hope that the judge agrees with "I consider the Patent Infringement argument a rabbit hole too - because that's Tort Law and no one goes to jail. The patent holder (plantiff) would have to sue individual users in court and would only receive money. *Highly Unlikely* for that to happen (ridiculous RIAA music lawsuits aside) "

Interested to read the final judgement against them

IANL but it sounds Civil, so they won't do time. Companies are a different animal though, much higher likelihood of a lawsuit company .vs company. I took "Are SARMS illegal" as "Can an AM member go to jail for ordering from CEM/IMR".

 

[smith_69]

IANL but it sounds Civil, so they won't do time. Companies are a different animal though, much higher likelihood of a lawsuit company .vs company. I took "Are SARMS illegal" as "Can an AM member go to jail for ordering from CEM/IMR".

You have to agree that they are being used for research purposes only and not human use.
That releases or should release liability

BS blatantly used a patent product not for human use w/o authorization. The company obviously realized the loss here as they were the ones who filed the suit.
They should be required to forfeit all profits.
Funny thing is, if BS didn't offer this would Sarms really even be a big discussion?

 

[rambofireball]

Any update on legality of purchase in regard to LGD and MK-677?