Should prohormones be classified legally in the same group as PCP, heroin, crack, and other Schedual III drugs?
Should Prohormones be illegal
- Thread starter Bryan Haycock
- Start date
I will perform here another of my (usual) huge mind leaps and I will quote a reviewer of the "Walking with prehistoric beasts" DVD in Amazon.com:
So, to make the surrealistic connection: In a world where:
- alcohol and smoke rule
- fluoxetine has been prescribed and taken more frequently than food
- people are taking more and more pills every day not because they should but because their doctor has good relationships with some pharmaceutical company
- etc..
...in such a world, banning prohormones looks like blurring the scene where the 2 australopithecus are having sex
[b said:
So, to make the surrealistic connection: In a world where:
- alcohol and smoke rule
- fluoxetine has been prescribed and taken more frequently than food
- people are taking more and more pills every day not because they should but because their doctor has good relationships with some pharmaceutical company
- etc..
...in such a world, banning prohormones looks like blurring the scene where the 2 australopithecus are having sex
i am undecided. not becuase i disagree with their use or even the potential side effects, but becuase of marketing.
1) They are sold by untrustworthy companies.
2) Their marketing strategy is targets the less well educated
Hormones are not 'toys'. They should not be played with in the same way as protein powders. They require respect.
-I think the situation would be much better if claims such as 'the most potent delivery system ever engineered' and 'the most potent form of [insert] ever packaged' were omitted.
-If companies were trustworthy and definately met some kind of government standards it would be better.
-If everyone had access to GENUINE information about the products, pros and cons and safeguards.
Its hard to acheive these things in the current greedy market. That is why i am unhappy about prohormone sale, and why i would never touch the stuff. I just dont know what to believe.
Firstly, do i trust the company i am buying from?...NO
Secondly, do i trust the information given by that company?....NO
Thirdly, do i trust the information provided by a bunch of guys on the net?...NO not with something so serious.
Forthly, because of their nature, there is no one set usage plan, ie you cannot say take 2 doses of X per day with 1 dose of Y and you will have all the gains without the side effects.
Lastly, I dont want any of the potentail side effects.
1) They are sold by untrustworthy companies.
2) Their marketing strategy is targets the less well educated
Hormones are not 'toys'. They should not be played with in the same way as protein powders. They require respect.
-I think the situation would be much better if claims such as 'the most potent delivery system ever engineered' and 'the most potent form of [insert] ever packaged' were omitted.
-If companies were trustworthy and definately met some kind of government standards it would be better.
-If everyone had access to GENUINE information about the products, pros and cons and safeguards.
Its hard to acheive these things in the current greedy market. That is why i am unhappy about prohormone sale, and why i would never touch the stuff. I just dont know what to believe.
Firstly, do i trust the company i am buying from?...NO
Secondly, do i trust the information given by that company?....NO
Thirdly, do i trust the information provided by a bunch of guys on the net?...NO not with something so serious.
Forthly, because of their nature, there is no one set usage plan, ie you cannot say take 2 doses of X per day with 1 dose of Y and you will have all the gains without the side effects.
Lastly, I dont want any of the potentail side effects.
I buy alcohol, and I know full well what can happen if take it in a way that is "improper" (let's say, in excess - not according to "directions" which suggests moderation).
I can do lots of damage to myself, and more importantly, to others, if I do abuse it. I could kill someone under its influence.
Yet, it is perfectly legal to buy & use alcohol if I am of age.
Does this make sense? Not to me.
I believe many supplements are very harmless if taken properly, or at least no more harmful than alcohol or other substances if taken regularly.
Though it can kill me, I can also buy & smoke cigarettes if i choose. Though it can kill me, I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet if I wish and I crash. There are, however, no laws that prevent me from ingesting any number of commonplace harmful substances, or from beating myself over the head with a hammer, for that matter.
Allow me to make the decision, use my common sense & pay the consequence if need be. Nobody is putting a gun to my head to use this stuff, so I have nobody to blame but myself.
I can do lots of damage to myself, and more importantly, to others, if I do abuse it. I could kill someone under its influence.
Yet, it is perfectly legal to buy & use alcohol if I am of age.
Does this make sense? Not to me.
I believe many supplements are very harmless if taken properly, or at least no more harmful than alcohol or other substances if taken regularly.
Though it can kill me, I can also buy & smoke cigarettes if i choose. Though it can kill me, I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet if I wish and I crash. There are, however, no laws that prevent me from ingesting any number of commonplace harmful substances, or from beating myself over the head with a hammer, for that matter.
Allow me to make the decision, use my common sense & pay the consequence if need be. Nobody is putting a gun to my head to use this stuff, so I have nobody to blame but myself.
You need a license to ride a motorcycle and be of age to both drink and smoke. Since everyone enjoys comparing these things, does that raise the question as to whether or not there should be an age requirement (or something similiar, license, test, informational class, etc...) on prohormones and the like? Should any legal substance with a dangerous potential, if used the wrong way, be subject to such requirements in order to prevent misuse?
At least in the cases you mention, you KNOW that you are potentially going to damage yourself because they're so mainstream, such that the harmful consequences are very apparent. Such is not the case of prohormones, imho.
At least in the cases you mention, you KNOW that you are potentially going to damage yourself because they're so mainstream, such that the harmful consequences are very apparent. Such is not the case of prohormones, imho.
[b said:
Education is not the point, what if hormones were legal ? Everybody knows that they have to read the leaflet and all possible dangers are mentioned. But they would inject all they could. Even with perfect education, prohormone use wouldn't be affected. The same happened in the 70s with anti-tobacco campaign: pointing out the hazards of smoke had absolutely no effect because young people perceived the dangers to be too distant.
At this point, where we already have the verdict on alcohol and smoke and yet nothing is being done, banning prohormones would be insulting our intelligence. Like going to a cancer patient and instead of trying to deal with his disease we say to him "You naughty boy, you can't have any more of these Doritos. They are bad for you."
Good points 
So if education isn't the solution, what is? Since we can't beat em, join em?
I personally think that the comparison with alcohol and smoking is a moot point and using the "hypocrite" argument is somewhat of a defensive cop-out. It's like a defeatist saying, "Well, we didn't do a good enough of a job to prevent the influx of subject_a into society, why take measures to prevent the influx of subject_b before fixing subject_a?" Isn't it easier to get a handle on something before it propagates?
Granted, alcohol and smoking affect many more people than prohormones but they've also been rooting themselves into our society for centuries now and they did so before scientific studies proved them to be "bad." Now, should we ignore history and allow potentially harmful substances free reign in our economy merely because other harmful substances already have free reign? It's a tired argument, imo.
Now, let's say that alcohol and smoking were banned. Would that make it ok to ban prohormones? If so, why? In addition, we all know that anabolic steroids themselves are scheduled and we all know that prohormones can be androgenic. So, shouldn't prohormones be scheduled too? If not, why?
Hiding behind the "they're being hypocrital" phrase tends to avoid a solid argument as to why prohormones should or should not be banned. It's like the little brother saying, "Well, big brother got away with it, why can't I?" I'd rather listen to the "It's my body" argument any day
So if education isn't the solution, what is? Since we can't beat em, join em?[b said:
I personally think that the comparison with alcohol and smoking is a moot point and using the "hypocrite" argument is somewhat of a defensive cop-out. It's like a defeatist saying, "Well, we didn't do a good enough of a job to prevent the influx of subject_a into society, why take measures to prevent the influx of subject_b before fixing subject_a?" Isn't it easier to get a handle on something before it propagates?
Granted, alcohol and smoking affect many more people than prohormones but they've also been rooting themselves into our society for centuries now and they did so before scientific studies proved them to be "bad." Now, should we ignore history and allow potentially harmful substances free reign in our economy merely because other harmful substances already have free reign? It's a tired argument, imo.
Now, let's say that alcohol and smoking were banned. Would that make it ok to ban prohormones? If so, why? In addition, we all know that anabolic steroids themselves are scheduled and we all know that prohormones can be androgenic. So, shouldn't prohormones be scheduled too? If not, why?
Hiding behind the "they're being hypocrital" phrase tends to avoid a solid argument as to why prohormones should or should not be banned. It's like the little brother saying, "Well, big brother got away with it, why can't I?" I'd rather listen to the "It's my body" argument any day
Well, as I said in the other thread, yes, in a perfect future world prohormones would be banned after drugs, alcohol and smoke. Why do it after and not now ?
This is not a matter of scientific logic, it is a matter of social logic. When you don't tax rich people as you should, you can't tax poor people. You will cause a revolution. Tax collectors have an argument: "ok, so we don't tax rich people, but we have to collect from somewhere, so it will be the poor people". But as we know, this can't work this way. You have to at least pretend you tax everybody. Society will not accept it. And it will bypass it, exactly as it does now with aas and drugs. This will be a moot prohibition
The drunkard, abusing, careless father rushes into your room at 4:30am shouting "hey, why are you watching tv so late ?" How do you react ? Does it sound logical ? Theoretically you shouldn't be watching tv that late and he's right, but we are a little more complex than that.
So, we also have to make sure that we are mature to accept a prohibition and that it will actually be effective. And you know that the way things are, such a prohibition will be a joke
This is not a matter of scientific logic, it is a matter of social logic. When you don't tax rich people as you should, you can't tax poor people. You will cause a revolution. Tax collectors have an argument: "ok, so we don't tax rich people, but we have to collect from somewhere, so it will be the poor people". But as we know, this can't work this way. You have to at least pretend you tax everybody. Society will not accept it. And it will bypass it, exactly as it does now with aas and drugs. This will be a moot prohibition
The drunkard, abusing, careless father rushes into your room at 4:30am shouting "hey, why are you watching tv so late ?" How do you react ? Does it sound logical ? Theoretically you shouldn't be watching tv that late and he's right, but we are a little more complex than that.
So, we also have to make sure that we are mature to accept a prohibition and that it will actually be effective. And you know that the way things are, such a prohibition will be a joke
Hah, agreed! Crazy @$$ conundrum, ain't it? I'd prolly be more biased if I actively took them or planned on it but, at the moment, I'm mostly just interested in seeing how it turns out and how people defend the legality/morality of 'em[b said:Quote[/b] (micmic @ Oct. 29 2003,2:32)]So, we also have to make sure that we are mature to accept a prohibition and that it will actually be effective. And you know that the way things are, such a prohibition will be a joke
RainierWolfcastle
New Member
I personally think that prohormones should be treated the same same as steriods and should be restricted. By restricted I mean.
* You need to have a doctors script to get it
* It should be relatively easy to get a doctors script
Steriods and prohormones have a very similar effect and this is why I think they should be treated the same. Steriods as a drug that are often abused, but if used correctly can be quite useful.
Making people go through a doctor will help reduce abuse. You still have the problem that most doctors are as dumb as a bucketful of nails but I think it is a step in the right direction.
Rainier.
* You need to have a doctors script to get it
* It should be relatively easy to get a doctors script
Steriods and prohormones have a very similar effect and this is why I think they should be treated the same. Steriods as a drug that are often abused, but if used correctly can be quite useful.
Making people go through a doctor will help reduce abuse. You still have the problem that most doctors are as dumb as a bucketful of nails but I think it is a step in the right direction.
Rainier.
Theoretically again, you are correct. But I insist that it will lead to the "why-not-me" syndrome:[b said:
- "Mom, why did you buy John a chocolate but I can't have one ?"
- "It is bad for your teeth"
- "Yes, but John got it!"
So, the aspiring bodybuilder will think:
"It is legal for everybody to abuse their body, smoke and drink to their hearts content, but when I want to build my body they throw me some ridiculous side-effects crap on the face ? What the heck, I'll probably outlive all those legal smokers and drinkers!"
And we all know where this will lead (black market, suspicious products, in the end everyone gets what he wants - only more expensive). And I don't think that we have many doctors that would prescribe (pro-)hormones for bodybuilding purposes...
KingProtein
New Member
Prohormones should not be illegal. Steroids should not be illegal. Let us for once take responsibility for what we put in our bodies. If we want to be ignorant, let us suffer the consequences. All you gotta do is read the warning label to understand that there are potential consequences, is that really asking too much of us?
I for one think it is rediculous to protect us from ourselves. It would be one thing if prohormones were physically addicting, or if they had the ability to adversely affect someone other than the user.
And what about the kids? Well, then slap a minimum age requirement on the bottle. Make it 18, sure it's arbitrary, but so are the ages for cigarettes and alcohol. Kids still get these, sure, but they know they shouldn't. Again, take responsibility for yourself.
Nobody dies from AAS usage (well, the number is minute), and frankly, it'd be hard to screw yourself up too badly. Look at the consequences of steroid use, suppression (corrected gradually after cycle), gyno (not fun, sure, but it's not gonna kill you), hair loss (cosmetic), rage (placebo). The worst it gets is liver problems, and even that is only an issue with ultra-long cycles of oral steroids. AND most prohormones don't suffer these drawbacks to any great degree, especially at labeled dosages.
For the time being for myself, I've decided against illegal AAS. In my own personal cost/risk analysis, I've decided that prohormones are a better bargain for me. In much the same way in terms of cost/benefit analysis, I decided that prohormones would be a good tool for me to use in my body composition quest. I respect people who choose to go natural, and I repect those who choose even the highest doses of AAS. Just because I think doing a long cycle of 17-AA steroids is potentially dangerous does not mean I think we should ban them. This would not be fair to the user who can safely integrate these substances into their cycles.
Are we all aware why steroids were banned in the first place? Was it because they're dangerous to our health, or a threat to the kids? No, not at all. They were banned under pressure from anti-doping agencies. Don't believe me? Think of this, many different types of steroids are legal, prednisone, etc. But...
"By definition, the single characteristic of AAS that makes them subject to classification as controlled substances is the fact that they promote muscle growth. The statutory definition does not refer to dangerous side effects or potential for abuse, only the promotion of muscle growth."
-John Williams
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article....-01.htm
The entire matter is a huge frustration for me. It's pure tyranny of the majority. The public is entirely uneducated about hormones/steroids, and they are afraid of them. It's altogether way too easy for lawmakers to score 'points' by banning these substances, it'd be stupid for them not to. By doing so they gain the support of millions while alienating only a very tiny fringe group of bodybuilders. We'd like to think that politicans have integrity and they make choices by examining the facts and the merits of argument - but unfortunately such individuals are few and far between.
I apologize to the board. Rant off.
I for one think it is rediculous to protect us from ourselves. It would be one thing if prohormones were physically addicting, or if they had the ability to adversely affect someone other than the user.
And what about the kids? Well, then slap a minimum age requirement on the bottle. Make it 18, sure it's arbitrary, but so are the ages for cigarettes and alcohol. Kids still get these, sure, but they know they shouldn't. Again, take responsibility for yourself.
Nobody dies from AAS usage (well, the number is minute), and frankly, it'd be hard to screw yourself up too badly. Look at the consequences of steroid use, suppression (corrected gradually after cycle), gyno (not fun, sure, but it's not gonna kill you), hair loss (cosmetic), rage (placebo). The worst it gets is liver problems, and even that is only an issue with ultra-long cycles of oral steroids. AND most prohormones don't suffer these drawbacks to any great degree, especially at labeled dosages.
For the time being for myself, I've decided against illegal AAS. In my own personal cost/risk analysis, I've decided that prohormones are a better bargain for me. In much the same way in terms of cost/benefit analysis, I decided that prohormones would be a good tool for me to use in my body composition quest. I respect people who choose to go natural, and I repect those who choose even the highest doses of AAS. Just because I think doing a long cycle of 17-AA steroids is potentially dangerous does not mean I think we should ban them. This would not be fair to the user who can safely integrate these substances into their cycles.
Are we all aware why steroids were banned in the first place? Was it because they're dangerous to our health, or a threat to the kids? No, not at all. They were banned under pressure from anti-doping agencies. Don't believe me? Think of this, many different types of steroids are legal, prednisone, etc. But...
"By definition, the single characteristic of AAS that makes them subject to classification as controlled substances is the fact that they promote muscle growth. The statutory definition does not refer to dangerous side effects or potential for abuse, only the promotion of muscle growth."
-John Williams
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article....-01.htm
The entire matter is a huge frustration for me. It's pure tyranny of the majority. The public is entirely uneducated about hormones/steroids, and they are afraid of them. It's altogether way too easy for lawmakers to score 'points' by banning these substances, it'd be stupid for them not to. By doing so they gain the support of millions while alienating only a very tiny fringe group of bodybuilders. We'd like to think that politicans have integrity and they make choices by examining the facts and the merits of argument - but unfortunately such individuals are few and far between.
I apologize to the board. Rant off.
There is one more big difference. with booze, you know that you are getting 5% or 40% alcohol. You can make choices accordingly. In addition, you know that that alcohol is not contaminated or actually methelated spirit. There is something to be said for tight regulation, control and education. Most people (note the term MOST) would not drink an equal volume of lager compared with vodka...they know that would be asking for trouble.........
That's a bit off topic (though I understand the why you bring it up). Nevertheless, please don't turn this thread into a debate about marijuana. That is a topic for other message boards.[b said:
Let's keep this discussion about prohormones.
Thanks
Bryan, while I may be over-stepping my bounds by asking this because you have a business to run but still: do you believe that prohormones should be regulated? Originally, I had hoped your poll would have more options (aka, prohormones should be illegal for sports/competition or regulated via age, etc...) but it didn't. So, feel free to abstain or what-not but I really would be interested in your take on the whole pro-hormone or supplement thing